Why are you mentioning the GBD in your reply to me? I never once mentioned the GBD, haven't yet commented on it........... I'll come onto that in another post because that expert reaction is very very interesting. Yet another group of highly intelligent academics who cannot even acknowledge the existence of multiple immune responses and happily quote 8% immunity. They cannot even acknowledge there are forms of immunity? Seriously? People need to start asking why.
As for the "dodgy" antibody study by Bhattacharya - I have previously criticised that on this forum.
*Sigh* I defended Ferguson from people completely misrepresenting his work and now have to do it for Gupta (from the opposite side of the debate!). It wasn't as case of "where she claimed up to half the population had already had covid". With all of these types of papers there are assumptions (some which may be closer to the reality than others). It was a range and an estimate IF certain assumptions were the case. Yes, scientists and epidemiologists were critical, pretty normal. Why were they critical? You don't say.
You seem happy to say "Plenty of leading scientists and epidemiologists highly critical of them" and take at face value those criticisms yet also say that "the GBD has some serious questions to it and it shouldn’t be taken at face value just because it has some ‘leading’ scientists attached to it."
Back to Gupta....... I saw the press release and also desperately wanted it to be true as it was "what I wanted to hear". I suspect I was in the same boat as you at that point. I dismissed it as many scientists jumped on it and said it was nonsense. That was my failing. My failing to understand the paper, failure to understand the background.
One assumption in that paper was that (quote from
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coronavirus-infections-oxford-study-immunity) if "In the most extreme scenario they estimate that if the virus had started being transmitted 38 days before the first confirmed death then 68 per cent of the UK population would have been infected by March 19."
We now know the virus was highly likely established in Europe before initially thought (waste water studies, retrospective analyses of unusual pneumonia) and I am very confident subsequent studies will confirm this. This is in contrast to Ferguson who suggested that the virus was not in circulation earlier than thought and also did not believe that we were seeing a "tip of the ice berg".
In hindsight of course we were. No one, even Ferguson would deny that now. I'm not criticising that, Ferguson stated to the parliamentary select committee that track and trace was never modeled as they didn't have enough testing. No country was going to pick up the beginnings of this. If we were actually able to test (not a criticism of government) then we'd have been picking up cases in Jan, Feb, March, maybe earlier.
Lets look at that date of 19th March because it is very interesting.........
By March 19th Gupta would have us nearing "herd immunity" in the "extreme scenario". Heneghan (who I didn't didn't come across until later and is often knocked down for being "right wing" - I really don't care about "right wing" or "left wing" in all of this. Policy comes secondary to evidence) noted that the peak of UK deaths (by date) occurred on 8th April (see link below - I couldn't access the latest NHS data for some reason but 8th was peak deaths by date from NHS sources):
View attachment 7347
This is in concurrence with other research groups, including,
https://www.lshtm.ac.uk/newsevents/...hs-occurring-english-hospitals-passed-8-april
A lag of 21-28 days from infection to death (widely acknowledged, please ask if you want the links, there are going to be enough already) gives a peak infection date of ~18th March (assuming ~21 day lag, earlier if longer lag).
https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-william-farrs-way-out-of-the-pandemic/
Not black and white as companies and individuals had started to implement "distancing" by that point but suggestive that "lockdown" on 23rd of March was AFTER peak infections. What stopped further progression? Immunity? Distancing measures (the harshest of which weren't introduced until 23rd March?).
Interested to hear peoples views.
Don't believe me? Chris Whitty giving evidence..... (see between 1:14 - 1:15:10 for commenting on R0 below 1, again not a criticism of Whitty, analysis done retrospectively).
I'm glad you're a fan of Dr Campbell Fabio, he really is very good. I suggest you have a look at this if you haven't seen it.....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5Z6wdu1eI0&t=1392s
Seriously, have a look, even if only for the "headline" news. And then ask yourself if that 8% immunity figure (based on antibodies only, and from a while ago) which is now mindlessly trotted out by politicians and many scientists (including those in the response to the GBD you cite) is actually correct. More to come on that including John Edmund's position.
If you look at Ferguson's position and Gupta's position with hindsight then it is currently clear that one is much closer to the reality, and it isn't Ferguson's. I did always say the outcome would depend on the proportion susceptible. If people can provide evidence that we still have a large susceptible population and the virus will cause a major (please put into context with other respiratory viruses before talking about cases) then I'm all ears. I was ignorant of other forms of immunity and that was my lack of understanding.
I owe an apology to several posters who back in Feb / March (I think one left the board and I can't remember their username) I argued with very much from the side of caution. I didn't listen to their position enough despite them explaining their views and the nature of this virus.