> If enough people have already recovered from mild or asymptomatic cases (it would have to be a pretty hefty percentage, granted) then that, combined with not-total-lockdown conditions, could bring down the R0 value enough to cause the same result.
They're reporting basically no new cases at this point. For that to happen naturally, they'd need to have gotten like 2/3rds of the population infected. And it's quite hard to see how that could be true.
Korea had the most comprehensive testing (320k tests, available to basically anyone with even mild symptoms). They have so far confirmed infections in 0.02% of the population, and only got positive results in less than 3% of the tests. It's hard to believe that 60-70% of the population got infected, but even in the skewed sample of people who got tested only 3% being positive.
Compare that with something like Switzerland where the number of confirmed cases is at 0.08% of the population despite worse test coverage (basically only get tested if your symptoms warrant hospitalization), and there's no sign of it slowing down yet.
Or Spain which has 3x the cases of Korea on a similar population, has a health care system that's melting down, and where more than 55% of the tests are positive.
If herd immunity provided by all the undetected cases protected Korea, why is it not kicking in anywhere else even once their infection rates are obviously higher?
> Do you think it’s much more likely that the virus has been totally contained?
"Totally contained" is an exaggeration, since they are still finding new cases. But given how long the infection rate has been stable, it does look like they've managed to reach a R0 of almost exactly 1 with the aggressive testing + tracing strategy.
The only alternative that's at all plausible is that the Korean numbers are being fudged somehow, and they actually have a lot more cases than are being reported. But then why aren't the hospitals in a crisis unlike in other affected regions?