COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
inbetween said:
Given prior to the lockdown we did absolutely nothing to stop the spread, the 2nd wave cannot be as bad. We know far more and we are testing far more so we will detect spikes faster.

Last time we hadn't even thought to call 999 but this time the fire engines are parked outside ready for the fire.

The only way to catch this virus and spread it is to catch it from someone else but the current estimate is that only 0.24% of the entire population are currently infected. The risk now generally is very low and if we can maintain R below 1 by social distancing than that number will reduce even more.

For the most part, if even 50% of the population follows the rules then that's a 50% reduction in infections which at the worst of the first wave brings R down from 3 to 1.5.

The most interesting statistic is that for every coronavirus test performed only 21% actually had symptoms........ I think the real number who have been infected already is MASSIVE and well into the tens of millions. This for me is why immunity testing is far more important than finding a vaccine.

If the above is correct and many do have immunity (ie herd immunity) then there's a very low chance of a second wave anyway.
Click to expand...
Fantasyland.
Every word.
 
Last edited:
inbetween said:
...The most interesting statistic is that for every coronavirus test performed only 21% actually had symptoms........
Click to expand...

Which study supports that number?
The world is still quite clueless about an accurate true cases guess.

I asked some pages back but nobody replied:
Why should we massively under-test asymptomatic infections?

4m+ UK tested, roughly 80m tests globally and what we find is that under 10% of mainly symptomatics are positive, while positive asymptomatics are under-represented in big numbers?

I would need to have a good reason to follow that idea.
 
inbetween said:
Given prior to the lockdown we did absolutely nothing to stop the spread, the 2nd wave cannot be as bad. We know far more and we are testing far more so we will detect spikes faster.

Last time we hadn't even thought to call 999 but this time the fire engines are parked outside ready for the fire.

The only way to catch this virus and spread it is to catch it from someone else but the current estimate is that only 0.24% of the entire population are currently infected. The risk now generally is very low and if we can maintain R below 1 by social distancing than that number will reduce even more.

For the most part, if even 50% of the population follows the rules then that's a 50% reduction in infections which at the worst of the first wave brings R down from 3 to 1.5.

The most interesting statistic is that for every coronavirus test performed only 21% actually had symptoms........ I think the real number who have been infected already is MASSIVE and well into the tens of millions. This for me is why immunity testing is far more important than finding a vaccine.

If the above is correct and many do have immunity (ie herd immunity) then there's a very low chance of a second wave anyway.
Click to expand...
Who knows mate but personally I would say there is absolutely no chance that "tens of millions" have had this already. Not a prayer of that being true IMO.
 
ManCityX said:
The 2nd wave is going to be as bad if not worse than the first.

If we’d held out just a 3-4 weeks longer with a stronger lockdown then we’d have most likely avoided it, at least to the degree it will hit now.

Unfortunately people thought ‘protecting the economy’ was more important. What they didn’t realise that holding out just that bit longer would protect the economy much more than rushing back into things would.

Younger people out drinking, people of all ages going round to houses. Social distancing isn’t an exact science. If you’re round someone’s house getting pissed and one of you has the virus it’s likely it would be passed on if you’re with each other all day, using the same bathroom etc, even if you’re so far apart.

The figures in a few months are going to be horrendous compared to the countries which did lockdown right, and they already look outrageously bad right now.

This government has so much to answer for.
Click to expand...
Totally disagree. Being outside and meeting people outside is totally safe.
Even the beach thing this weekend has been fairly safe viewed from above without the telephoto lense making it look dreadful.
It's the total ignoring of social distancing that is the worry and has been the cause of most infections during lockdown. Many of the scenes at supermarkets have been appalling
For similar reasons, Schools will be pretty safe.
Opening Shopping malls and IKEA where people are inside is what worries me.
 
BlueAnorak said:
Totally disagree. Being outside and meeting people outside is totally safe.
Even the beach thing this weekend has been fairly safe viewed from above without the telephoto lense making it look dreadful.
It's the total ignoring of social distancing that is the worry and has been the cause of most infections during lockdown. Many of the scenes at supermarkets have been appalling
For similar reasons, Schools will be pretty safe.
Opening Shopping malls and IKEA where people are inside is what worries me.
Click to expand...
I wonder why when total lockdown was eased that Spain brought in a legally binding rule that facemasks must be used in all public places?
I assumed the mask protects others and in a way reduces the 2 metre rule to about 1 metre. Is that wrong?
 
Chippy_boy said:
Who knows mate but personally I would say there is absolutely no chance that "tens of millions" have had this already. Not a prayer of that being true IMO.
Click to expand...
The Infection fatality rate is somewhere between 0.25% and 1% based on studies in Germany and America

From the measured mortality you can then get a rough idea of how many people have had it - very rough based on a that spread.

For example if we assume 0.5% IFR and 50,000 deaths in the UK then 10m have had it in the UK. However nothing is simple. Can we say that the IFR is uniform when we know for example that demographics have such a huge effect. Look at Africa. Look at Singapore. The migrant population hut hard, the domestic population untouched. Look at New York, New York City has antibody rates of 50% according to a very large survey and yet the suburbs have hardly been touched. It's not uniform.

I must admit the antibody testing in the UK conflicts with this.
 
EZWUHeRWsAA4zfC
 
Marvin said:
The Infection fatality rate is somewhere between 0.25% and 1% based on studies in Germany and America

From the measured mortality you can then get a rough idea of how many people have had it - very rough based on a that spread.

For example if we assume 0.5% IFR and 50,000 deaths in the UK then 10m have had it in the UK. However nothing is simple. Can we say that the IFR is uniform when we know for example that demographics have such a huge effect. Look at Africa. Look at Singapore. The migrant population hut hard, the domestic population untouched. Look at New York, New York City has antibody rates of 50% according to a very large survey and yet the suburbs have hardly been touched. It's not uniform.

I must admit the antibody testing in the UK conflicts with this.
Click to expand...

And this very point of lack of homogeneity is why local R is more important than National and why you don't need 60% immunity for Herd immunity to have an effect.
 
St.Pauli support said:
Which study supports that number?
The world is still quite clueless about an accurate true cases guess.

I asked some pages back but nobody replied:
Why should we massively under-test asymptomatic infections?

4m+ UK tested, roughly 80m tests globally and what we find is that under 10% of mainly symptomatics are positive, while positive asymptomatics are under-represented in big numbers?

I would need to have a good reason to follow that idea.
Click to expand...

There is a discussion on it here but it's wildly varied.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/05/0...a-asymptomatic-versus-symptomatic-infections/

Personally I see mild symptoms as the same thing because prior to the increased awareness very few people were tested or had any knowledge that they could have the virus.

Everyone I know seems to know someone who just after Xmas was wiped out by 'something' they've never had before.
 
Yes, its weekend data but 15 deaths reported on the day is encouraging. Must be the lowest since the very earliest days of the outbreak.

North West too was a lower proportion of the new cases reported. Yorkshire and East England higher.

And total UK hospital deaths only just above 100. Again even for a Sunday that is another step in the right direction. Remember we were 8 x that level under 2 months ago.

Though the total deaths announced over the last two weekends were not significantly higher than this UK hospital only total. So the decrease is notably slowing Last Sundays announced figure for all settings was only about 10 higher than todays hospital only total.

All in all good news. But with a cautionary note.
 
Last edited:
inbetween said:
There is a discussion on it here but it's wildly varied.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/05/0...a-asymptomatic-versus-symptomatic-infections/

Personally I see mild symptoms as the same thing because prior to the increased awareness very few people were tested or had any knowledge that they could have the virus.

Everyone I know seems to know someone who just after Xmas was wiped out by 'something' they've never had before.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link, although it perfectly supports my view, that we still don't know about true case numbers.
Modelling has the well known problem of wide error ranges, and I might add you can improve the outcome of your model if you have any political plans in mind. Modelling shows one future scenario at a certain probability, not more, not less.

We definitely need scientific proof, we can't rely on subjective statements how people have felt just after Xmas.

Antibody surveys should give us an idea - IF antibodies certainly exist after some time post infection.
To find out if antibodies have been produced many positive PCR tested persons should be antibody tested first.
We could go on from there and roll out antibody surveys for critical/frontline staff and across the community.
 
Last edited:
inbetween said:
There is a discussion on it here but it's wildly varied.

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2020/05/0...a-asymptomatic-versus-symptomatic-infections/

Personally I see mild symptoms as the same thing because prior to the increased awareness very few people were tested or had any knowledge that they could have the virus.

Everyone I know seems to know someone who just after Xmas was wiped out by 'something' they've never had before.
Click to expand...

what ever it was before and just after xmas it wasnt covid.

average weekly deaths proves it without any doubt.
 
So the last 4 announced (all settings) deaths on a Sunday have been 269,170, 118 and 113 today, Falling but plateauing.
 
grunge said:
what ever it was before and just after xmas it wasnt covid.

average weekly deaths proves it without any doubt.
Click to expand...
Was going to say the same.
I felt shit for 3 or 4 days in March a week or so after Wembley. Didn’t think I had it because I didn’t have the cough but I’m not so sure now.
It would be interesting to take the antibody test.
 
Marvin said:
The Infection fatality rate is somewhere between 0.25% and 1% based on studies in Germany and America

From the measured mortality you can then get a rough idea of how many people have had it - very rough based on a that spread.

For example if we assume 0.5% IFR and 50,000 deaths in the UK then 10m have had it in the UK. However nothing is simple. Can we say that the IFR is uniform when we know for example that demographics have such a huge effect. Look at Africa. Look at Singapore. The migrant population hut hard, the domestic population untouched. Look at New York, New York City has antibody rates of 50% according to a very large survey and yet the suburbs have hardly been touched. It's not uniform.

I must admit the antibody testing in the UK conflicts with this.
Click to expand...
Or perhaps NY are using shit antibody tests.
I suspect they are.
My daughter in law just went in for one at a drop in centre.
They are reportedly only 50% accurate!
 
Rammy Blue said:
Take a look at The Sun online front page, but it sums up why lockdown is fucked and as I said earlier that the youths are screwing it up for the adults - check how many of the stories are what could be classed as “shake your head” examples...
Click to expand...
Youths screwing it up for the adults? That’d make a change (and I’m 56)...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top