50% across the UK may have the virus - its been here since January at the latest.

bear66

Well-known member
#21
3.5 million test kits that will allow home testing should be available next week. Kits to be delivered by Amazon and for sale in chemists.

A week to see if it actually works (!) and then available to those exhibiting symptoms. Think they'll sell out quickly!
 
#24
Its an interesting theory, but one not backed up by the data I don't think.

If it were then the rate and spread of infections wouldn't be increasing in the manner in which they are, not just here globally.

The take away form this is the fact the the UK isn't testing enough people, hence its impossible to accurately see where the virus is, how its spreading and therefore we are in a very reactive state.

The South Koreans got ahead of the curve due to the way they tested - we are always playing catch up with our hands in our pockets, so to speak.
 
#25
Current testing shows about 90:10 negative to positive.

So on that sample 10% positive.

Population 65 million so possibly 6.5 million carrying the virus in some shape or form.
Quite a few caveats in that.

Firstly, as has been mentioned, the 90:10 figure only applies to those who have been tested not the general population. By definition, those tested have been displaying symptoms (often when presenting at hospital), so you can’t really apply that to the population at large.

Secondly, the proportion of positive tests is starting to increase. I think yesterday’s figure was 21% of all tests were positive, so that’s a sign the infection rate in the wider population is increasing.

Finally, the current tests are just a snapshot in time. Someone could easily have been negative when originally tested but then go on to contract the virus at a later date.

Again as already mentioned by others, the game changer should be these new tests which show if somebody has developed antibodies to the virus (i.e. they’ve already had it).
 

bear66

Well-known member
#28
#29
Thanks for the replies guys. Makes sense what you say, but I still think it’s interesting and I hope (perhaps foolishly) that there is some degree of ‘not being a million miles away from the truth’ in the study.
I think it’s a given that there are many more tens, possibly hundreds of thousands of cases that we are unaware of because they simply aren’t severe enough to require hospital treatment and testing, so the drive to antibody test the general population excites me.
Fabio, any possibility that we are further through this pandemic than we initially thought should be welcomed with open arms, but don't stop staying safe and taking precautions until this white paper has been peer reviewed and has much more academic backing than it does currently.
 
#30
Not many really have an urgent 'need' for one. (Probably reassuring for health professionals). As mentioned above, it's the antibody test (showing if you've had Coronavirus) rather than a test to see if you've currently got it.

Hopefully they'll keep a decent number of the tests back, so that they can do random sample testing across the population. That could then give a better understanding of background immunity that might have been built up already.
 

bear66

Well-known member
#31
Not many really have an urgent 'need' for one. (Probably reassuring for health professionals). As mentioned above, it's the antibody test (showing if you've had Coronavirus) rather than a test to see if you've currently got it.

Hopefully they'll keep a decent number of the tests back, so that they can do random sample testing across the population. That could then give a better understanding of background immunity that might have been built up already.
"Widespread availability of a fingerprick test that produces results in 10 to 15 minutes is a game-changer. NHS doctors and nurses with symptoms will know immediately whether they have – or have recovered from – Covid-19, enabling them to get back to work sooner."
 
#32
Bear66, yeah, I saw you'd posted that already. It's an antibody test. You start producing antibodies as soon as you get the virus, but keep them after you're better. Even if you didn't have any symptoms.

In the context of this thread / the article / modelling, they are talking about the background level of immunity being much higher than thought, because they are suggesting that many more people have been infected already. This test should start to show that (y)(y)

I SERIOUSLY hope that what Sunetra Gupta says turns out to be right. That would be great news!!
 
Last edited:

bear66

Well-known member
#33
Bear66, yeah, I saw you'd posted that already. It's an antibody test. You start producing antibodies as soon as you get the virus, but keep them after you're better. Even if you didn't have any symptoms.

In the context of this thread / the article / modelling, they are talking about the background level of immunity being much higher than thought, because they are suggesting that many more people have been infected already. This test should start to show that (y)(y)

I SERIOUSLY hope that what Sunetra Gupta says turns out to be right. That would be great news!!
It'll also allow medical staff to not self-isolate for no reason. 2 birds with 1 stone.
 
#34
In December I had what I would describe as a bout of flu symptoms, similar to what I have had before. The only difference being that I was left continuously breathless and woke up on several occasions struggling to breathe. On one occasion I shot up struggling to breathe and was literally gasping for air. The wife wanted to call an ambulance and I played it down. I put down to my years spent welding and my age. It did frighten me though and I struggled sleeping thinking about it.

I’m not saying it was the Coronavirus but I do believe some strain of it has been amongst us for some time. It use to mention corona on the back of the Dettol bottle.
 

bear66

Well-known member
#36
Does that just mean it isn't now a notifiable disease? Too much paperwork to do that! Or not 'high fatality'.

Definition of HCID

In the UK, a high consequence infectious disease (HCID) is defined according to the following criteria:

acute infectious disease
typically has a high case-fatality rate
may not have effective prophylaxis or treatment
often difficult to recognise and detect rapidly
ability to spread in the community and within healthcare settings
requires an enhanced individual, population and system response to ensure it is managed effectively, efficiently and safely
 

bear66

Well-known member
#37
In December I had what I would describe as a bout of flu symptoms, similar to what I have had before. The only difference being that I was left continuously breathless and woke up on several occasions struggling to breathe. On one occasion I shot up struggling to breathe and was literally gasping for air. The wife wanted to call an ambulance and I played it down. I put down to my years spent welding and my age. It did frighten me though and I struggled sleeping thinking about it.

I’m not saying it was the Coronavirus but I do believe some strain of it has been amongst us for some time. It use to mention corona on the back of the Dettol bottle.
It is now believed that the first case was 26 November. Any contact with someone from the Far East?
 
#38
Quite a few caveats in that.

Firstly, as has been mentioned, the 90:10 figure only applies to those who have been tested not the general population. By definition, those tested have been displaying symptoms (often when presenting at hospital), so you can’t really apply that to the population at large.

Secondly, the proportion of positive tests is starting to increase. I think yesterday’s figure was 21% of all tests were positive, so that’s a sign the infection rate in the wider population is increasing.

Finally, the current tests are just a snapshot in time. Someone could easily have been negative when originally tested but then go on to contract the virus at a later date.

Again as already mentioned by others, the game changer should be these new tests which show if somebody has developed antibodies to the virus (i.e. they’ve already had it).
At 21% we are looking at about 12 million infected, so starting to get up to big big figures.
By instinct I think it’s widespread just on the basis of the number of high profile public figures have caught it - Royalty, MPs, scientists, footballers, celebrities - it’s not exactly rare is it?
 
#39
Quite a few caveats in that.

Firstly, as has been mentioned, the 90:10 figure only applies to those who have been tested not the general population. By definition, those tested have been displaying symptoms (often when presenting at hospital), so you can’t really apply that to the population at large.

Secondly, the proportion of positive tests is starting to increase. I think yesterday’s figure was 21% of all tests were positive, so that’s a sign the infection rate in the wider population is increasing.

Finally, the current tests are just a snapshot in time. Someone could easily have been negative when originally tested but then go on to contract the virus at a later date.

Again as already mentioned by others, the game changer should be these new tests which show if somebody has developed antibodies to the virus (i.e. they’ve already had it).
Exactly ... There's people on this thread who can't take that it may well be true (the article) because they've suggested its going to be absolutely terrible.

I for one am happy this new test which is far more efficient will soon be available and pray that the article is correct.
The fact is we may have made the most Draconian legislation in generations based not on evidence but media and social media frenzy, yes this is a serious disease for some / many people but we should always follow the evidence.

Studies in Iceland who tested vast quantities of its population showed 50% showing no symptoms at all.
 
Top