FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
It’s a good thread this. Lots of polite, respectful debate and good ideas, from people with different points of view. How refreshing, compared to the old board. Well done chaps 
Corona virus data analysis. A fascinating read.
- Thread starter borolad259
- Start date
bear66
Well-known member
I think that's aerosol rather than airborne. There was a myth in India that it was airborne that caused major panic.
Not that it's all that relevant, (and OBVIOUSLY not as a sample size LOL!!) but I have a mate whose company shipped over some tests from Germany, because the company wanted him (and a number of others back at work, and they were all isolating having had Coronavirus symptoms). Out of about ten of them, only one guy tested positive, and none of them tested positive for antibodies.
The point is that they all thought they'd had it. With the wall-to-wall Coronavirus coverage at the moment, I reckon lots of people will be wondering (or thinking) that they've had Covid-19 because they've had a mild/bad cold, or a bout of normal flu. (Given the talk about the high percentage of mild cases).
It would be brilliant if they roll out mass antibody testing, and discover that 75% of us have had Coronavirus already, without knowing it. Personally I will expect the complete opposite, and they'll find a very low percentage.
The point is that they all thought they'd had it. With the wall-to-wall Coronavirus coverage at the moment, I reckon lots of people will be wondering (or thinking) that they've had Covid-19 because they've had a mild/bad cold, or a bout of normal flu. (Given the talk about the high percentage of mild cases).
It would be brilliant if they roll out mass antibody testing, and discover that 75% of us have had Coronavirus already, without knowing it. Personally I will expect the complete opposite, and they'll find a very low percentage.
Last edited:
Alvez_48
Well-known member
But Cuthbert that would mean 2 things... It's no where near as contagious as we believe and it would go against what's been found in Iceland and the cruise ships.
So whilst you could be right there's reason for optimism. Have a thorough read of the article BL posted in the OP it might help you revise your thoughts.
So whilst you could be right there's reason for optimism. Have a thorough read of the article BL posted in the OP it might help you revise your thoughts.
Hey Alvez - I did read that article, with interest. It just seemed (to me) as though the author made quite a few 'assumptions' in his interpretation of the data.
Don't get me wrong though, I will 100% be hoping for a really high level of background immunity (unknown/undetected infection) when antibody tests are rolled out. I just won't be expecting it.
spanishman
Well-known member
The stats are interesting.
As has been mentioned on a previous Sweden thread. There are circumstances that make Sweden different to some countries further south that have been a lot harder hit (I think these are right):
- relatively small numbers of large cities
- relatively low population density overall
- a history of a large percentage of sole occupancy of property
- high taxation and high investment is support infrastructure (no long term policy of austerity)
- higher number of ICU beds (at least in the stats that I found)
I feel that these circumstances mean that a herd immunity approach would be less likely to cause additional deaths in Sweden. Compared with a number of other countries. As they are less likely to reach the limits of capacity of medical support available.
The lock downs implemented in various countries are there to try to save lives in the short term.
Also, as is clear to see now across Europe, the figures being reported are under counting deaths outside hospitals. Imagine what they would have been like without a lock down.
As has been mentioned on a previous Sweden thread. There are circumstances that make Sweden different to some countries further south that have been a lot harder hit (I think these are right):
- relatively small numbers of large cities
- relatively low population density overall
- a history of a large percentage of sole occupancy of property
- high taxation and high investment is support infrastructure (no long term policy of austerity)
- higher number of ICU beds (at least in the stats that I found)
I feel that these circumstances mean that a herd immunity approach would be less likely to cause additional deaths in Sweden. Compared with a number of other countries. As they are less likely to reach the limits of capacity of medical support available.
The lock downs implemented in various countries are there to try to save lives in the short term.
Also, as is clear to see now across Europe, the figures being reported are under counting deaths outside hospitals. Imagine what they would have been like without a lock down.
Consulting my Swedish scientist pal just now, apparently there are 90,000 excess people on sick leave with corona symptoms in Sweden now. This has promtted the authorities to conduct massive serological testing. Currently the Swedish serological data points to 90% being asymptomatic or with v mild illness, (which isn't massively out of whack with iceland). Hopefully as this campaign of testing developes, more data will verify it, but, as my mate put it "roughly 1 million Swedes arec currently gallumping about with covid 19".
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
That’s a pretty sobering read, and a bit scary. I guess the truth of the matter is somewhere between the most pessimistic and the most optimistic thoughts. Ultimately, time will tell.
FabioPorkpie
Well-known member
And hopefully various treatments will come to be found sooner rather than later, which would reduce the pessimistic projections considerably.
bear66
Well-known member
Some of his assumptions are reasonable, but I agree with that. Particularly where he dismisses the claims regarding a large proportion of the population having had the virus with no supporting evidence. But his thinking is the basis for how a large proportion of the world are acting. The major issue is testing, both in terms of quality and quantity. Early on it was said our lab tests were 90% correct, but that seems to have fallen to 70% (the daily tests versus people tested seems to support that). The possibility of antibody testing must be way down the line of we're struggling to test for the virus itself.
There was a study carried out by a German institute (the one looking at and mass testing in the German hotspot) that swabbed every surface in a house where two Covid-19 positive people were living. They found no evidence of the virus anywhere in the house. This begs the question, how is it transmitting?
As far as I know, it's always been said from the very outset that it spreads primarily in droplets expelled by an infected person. Picking it up off surfaces seems to be a potential secondary route, from everything I've read
bear66
Well-known member
But the expectation was that those droplets end up on surfaces.
I'm not sure your emphasis is right though or we would have been told to wear masks and also you can wash hands but that's of secondary importance.
dooderooni
Well-known member
Regarding testing, I was watching Brian Williams on MSNBC and he quoted the number of Americans who had been tested then went on to say that with one million tests per day it would take one calendar year to test every American once.
That should be a sobering thought for everyone here when the government says they want 100,000 tests per day. That's approximately 660 days to test everyone.
Normal is a long way off just on those metrics alone and you'll need to have a robust strategy of contact tracing to back that up so anyone thinking that we won't need to adopt some sort of virus alert app should expect restrictions for a long time.
I'm on record as being worried about the erosion of our privacy so I would suggest the government would need to be completely transparent about how any app will work and have it subject to an independent oversight process if they want it to become a ubiquitous tool going forward.
That should be a sobering thought for everyone here when the government says they want 100,000 tests per day. That's approximately 660 days to test everyone.
Normal is a long way off just on those metrics alone and you'll need to have a robust strategy of contact tracing to back that up so anyone thinking that we won't need to adopt some sort of virus alert app should expect restrictions for a long time.
I'm on record as being worried about the erosion of our privacy so I would suggest the government would need to be completely transparent about how any app will work and have it subject to an independent oversight process if they want it to become a ubiquitous tool going forward.
He's right with regards to the USA, which has a huge population spread widely in geographic terms. The data analysis predics 7 x the current number of fatalities, so they really are at the beginning.
bear66
Well-known member
Good points there and supported by a few pointers from a minister today (Dorries) and also Ferguson on R4. This is going to be a long haul, but we need sufficient testing of those with symptoms and those they've contacted and an army of people doing it.
Redwurzel
Well-known member
A few points grabbed me on here
Ref Testing - Cuthbert states his employer had tests shipped over from Germany, I don't disbelieve C, but how come its so difficult for the UK Government to get tests completed if private employers can do it with ease?
Cuthbert said his employer tested fro the anti body test - I felt this test was too unreliable to use at present?
The only test close to reliability is the test to see if you have it - which I assume only is valid for a max of 7 days after you have had it and the virus has been around in the UK for at least 85 days so it will not pick up most people who had had it. If it picked up a 10% rate that is high when you think about it, bearing in mind what the test is able to do at present. i.e. measure if you had it. although the sample is extremely small with C's company
Ref 1 in 8 Women giving birth - that's 12.5% and again its only testing women who have it when tested, many more would have had the virus earlier outside the 7 day window, because I assume the virus has been in New York for at least 50 days now (based on infection to death rate of around 28 days).
Both sets of evidence make a mockery of the assumption of an infection rate of 4% in the UK which the Government seems to be using. Who on here actually believes to infection rate is around 4% even less than 10%?
ref Spanish Flu it had an infection rate of around 30%, so 70% of the population never caught it before the pandemic ended and it was all over the World. Lots of people seem to assume we have to have an infection rate of 60-100%! before the virus is finished.
This CV19 virus can be deadly it is extremely nasty, and I feel extremely sorry for those it has taken away and their friends and relatives (we lost an elderly aunty in law last week) but its getting treated at times as though its the new Black Death.
Ref Testing - Cuthbert states his employer had tests shipped over from Germany, I don't disbelieve C, but how come its so difficult for the UK Government to get tests completed if private employers can do it with ease?
Cuthbert said his employer tested fro the anti body test - I felt this test was too unreliable to use at present?
The only test close to reliability is the test to see if you have it - which I assume only is valid for a max of 7 days after you have had it and the virus has been around in the UK for at least 85 days so it will not pick up most people who had had it. If it picked up a 10% rate that is high when you think about it, bearing in mind what the test is able to do at present. i.e. measure if you had it. although the sample is extremely small with C's company
Ref 1 in 8 Women giving birth - that's 12.5% and again its only testing women who have it when tested, many more would have had the virus earlier outside the 7 day window, because I assume the virus has been in New York for at least 50 days now (based on infection to death rate of around 28 days).
Both sets of evidence make a mockery of the assumption of an infection rate of 4% in the UK which the Government seems to be using. Who on here actually believes to infection rate is around 4% even less than 10%?
ref Spanish Flu it had an infection rate of around 30%, so 70% of the population never caught it before the pandemic ended and it was all over the World. Lots of people seem to assume we have to have an infection rate of 60-100%! before the virus is finished.
This CV19 virus can be deadly it is extremely nasty, and I feel extremely sorry for those it has taken away and their friends and relatives (we lost an elderly aunty in law last week) but its getting treated at times as though its the new Black Death.