COVID-19 — Coronavirus

[denislawsbackheel]

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.

Fantasyland.
Every word.

 

[BlueHammer85]

We are all aware of the risks now.

The economy obviously can’t hold out much longer and a economic collapse could potentially kill more and create 10x more other issues.

the government can’t win now on this.

 

[BlueAnorak]

Where are these hotspot maps mate, got a link?

The ONS Rolling report last published on 28th may. Some newspapers did sensationalist reports based on it and I didnt want to quote them.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-covid-19-surveillance-reports

The top document is the one to look at. 2nd map on page 6.

 

[St.Pauli support]

...The most interesting statistic is that for every coronavirus test performed only 21% actually had symptoms........

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.

 

[Chippy_boy]

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.

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.

 

[BlueAnorak]

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.

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.

 

[SilverFox2]

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.

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?

 

[Marvin]

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.

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.

 

[Gelsons Dad]

 

[Gelsons Dad]

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.

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.