OK, to be clear, your source for the theory that the CCP Virus is as infectious as the measles, is you?
And you base this on your own hunch that Sweden is lying about the results of their serology testing, or that they somehow don’t have people with the math skills who can extrapolate to the general population? I only took one year of Statistics (we called it sadistics) after 2nd year calculus, and it pretty much broke my brain so I’m not pretending to be able to do that math myself. Asking on the chance that you can, and have.
Let me be very clear: I do not believe that Covid-19 is as infectious as measles. Its biology does not support that; it spreads through the respiratory route, meaning through direct contact with infected mucous or with droplets expelled through coughs and sneezes. Measles owes its high infectivity to the fact that it transmits through an aerosol route and virus can remain airborne for up to 2 hours.
The issue is that there are models (based on the GIGO principle) that are coming up with astronomical numbers of asymptomatic infections that neither fit the biology of the mode of transmission nor the mathematics of the spread of disease. Or the serological testing which is also coming up with an inflated number that cannot be reconciled with either biology or mathematics. I know from experience that antibodies vary in specificity, so my main question is, are those positive results truly Covid-19, or are they ordinary coronavirus infections--since this is still cold season, and it is far more likely that people would contract an ordinary cold than they would Covid-19. The only way those inflated numbers could be accurate would be if the infectivity of Covid-19 is greater than that of measles.
The spread of any disease follows a basic growth curve, which is a sigmoidal curve described by an exponential function. I'm going to have to play around with some numbers to determine what the R0 would have to be for the inflated models to be accurate. At an R0 of 2.5 (which I have been using for my calculations), the growth of active cases has matched the calculated values until April 1, when growth of cases dropped below the mathematical predictions.