Coronavirus good news thread

borolad259

Administrator
Staff member
A bit more in the link.

Link

I do hate lazy journalism. The tests were carried out 3 weeks ago, but the infections that resulted in those antibodies would be from at least 3 to 4 weeks earlier. Personally, I think it's quite a high figure for such an early date.

It is absolutely right that they totally failed in their care homes though. Like us, they had insufficient PPE for home staff ... so, like us, seeding the virus into the homes. Poor form.
 

bear66

Well-known member
That is brought out in the article. The architect thinks it's a bit lower than expected (20% by now re 25% expected). I'd say the sample size is too small to conclude anything. Usually, you'd add a large margin of error for such a small sample. There must be some reason they're not saying what they've found across the country.
 

bear66

Well-known member
Sweden’s chief epidemiologist, Anders Tegnell, said the antibodies figure was “a bit lower than we’d thought”, but added that it reflected the situation three weeks ago and he believed that by now “a little more than 20%” of Stockholm’s population had probably contracted the virus.

However, the public health agency had previously said it expected about 25% to have been infected by 1 May and Tom Britton, a maths professor who helped develop its forecasting model, said the figure from the study was surprising.

“It means either the calculations made by the agency and myself are quite wrong, which is possible, but if that’s the case it’s surprising they are so wrong,” he told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter. “Or more people have been infected than developed antibodies.”
 

borolad259

Administrator
Staff member
That is brought out in the article. The architect thinks it's a bit lower than expected (20% by now re 25% expected). I'd say the sample size is too small to conclude anything. Usually, you'd add a large margin of error.
I agree. I am presuming that the next batch of 1200 tests will be from a different sample group, so a bigger picture will emerge. What seems to be happening though is a natural slow down in the progress of the disease which is mirrored in many other places.
 

borolad259

Administrator
Staff member
It may be that people who are defeating the disease with their innate immune system, as kids do, may not develop antibodies. This is what the cancer doctor on unherd's youtoube was suggesting. Or people who are asymptomatic have very few antibodies. Again, time will tell.
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
It may be that people who are defeating the disease with their innate immune system, as kids do, may not develop antibodies. This is what the cancer doctor on unherd's youtoube was suggesting. Or people who are asymptomatic have very few antibodies. Again, time will tell.
The unherd video that YouTube have removed because it breaks guidelines apparently. I've seen the video and it is perfectly relevant.
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
Well, here's another. Professor Sunetra Gupta. Architect of the model that looks a lot closer to reality than Niall Ferguson's.
This video is all over Twitter this evening. A movement of real facts from verified people is gathering pace on social media and the internet in general and it's all good news.

Also the unherd video is back ON YouTube now so seems it was a programming error or YouTube verified it again after reviewing any complaints.
 
Well, here's another. Professor Sunetra Gupta. Architect of the model that looks a lot closer to reality than Niall Ferguson's.
These are interesting interviews, the problem with them is people take selected parts to quote and ignore all of the rest. They use it to push their viewpoint and ignore the balance within the interview. It is her belief that the epidemic is on its way out and she openly admits that it is impossible to prove this and impossible to show that there is the level of immunity within the population that she believes there is. I obviously hope she is correct.

Sadly if it chimes with ones view people will just rally behind it, trash Ferguson, and ignore the balance that she provides. She says that both hers and Fergusons (Neil, not Niall btw borolad259) models could have been consistent with the data in the early stages. It all depends on which assumptions fed into the models were correct. She obviously believes her model to be correct but admits it can't be proven. Her 1 in 10,000 IFR seems more than little suspect given around 35,000 deaths (conservative estimate).

Her discussion around other possible modes of immunity is interesting (as is Shane Crotty's study and Karol Sikora's views). That serological studies could put a 'lower bound' on the levels of spread within the population is also interesting.

She also acknowledges Ferguson's model was a worst case scenario and also a 'do nothing' scenario. There is simply no way to tell if it was correct as no country in the world, as far as I know, has done nothing. And a fair while before Johnson's message to avoid pubs and restaurants people already were. Public transport usage was already down, people were beginning to work from home, distancing in workplaces was being introduced.

It is also worth pointing out that Ferguson's model predicted ~approx 20,000 deaths with a suppression strategy and we are already above that. However, people just want to shout "he predicted 500,000 deaths and there has been no where near that!" ignoring the fact that was a "DO NOTHING" scenario which was obviously never going to happen in real life, its a mathematical model.

I have no particular reason to defend Ferguson and I hope he is/was wrong but I don't like his work simply being mis-represented.
 

borolad259

Administrator
Staff member
I don't have a viewpoint. I think that rational voices like hers need to be listened to. That's all. Draw your own conclusions from what she says. In common with most people, I have people close to me who this virus would likely kill.
 

Alvez_48

Active member
These are interesting interviews, the problem with them is people take selected parts to quote and ignore all of the rest. They use it to push their viewpoint and ignore the balance within the interview. It is her belief that the epidemic is on its way out and she openly admits that it is impossible to prove this and impossible to show that there is the level of immunity within the population that she believes there is. I obviously hope she is correct.

Sadly if it chimes with ones view people will just rally behind it, trash Ferguson, and ignore the balance that she provides. She says that both hers and Fergusons (Neil, not Niall btw borolad259) models could have been consistent with the data in the early stages. It all depends on which assumptions fed into the models were correct. She obviously believes her model to be correct but admits it can't be proven. Her 1 in 10,000 IFR seems more than little suspect given around 35,000 deaths (conservative estimate).

Her discussion around other possible modes of immunity is interesting (as is Shane Crotty's study and Karol Sikora's views). That serological studies could put a 'lower bound' on the levels of spread within the population is also interesting.

She also acknowledges Ferguson's model was a worst case scenario and also a 'do nothing' scenario. There is simply no way to tell if it was correct as no country in the world, as far as I know, has done nothing. And a fair while before Johnson's message to avoid pubs and restaurants people already were. Public transport usage was already down, people were beginning to work from home, distancing in workplaces was being introduced.

It is also worth pointing out that Ferguson's model predicted ~approx 20,000 deaths with a suppression strategy and we are already above that. However, people just want to shout "he predicted 500,000 deaths and there has been no where near that!" ignoring the fact that was a "DO NOTHING" scenario which was obviously never going to happen in real life, its a mathematical model.

I have no particular reason to defend Ferguson and I hope he is/was wrong but I don't like his work simply being mis-represented.
Yet you completely ignore the abhorrent code that Ferguson's model was based on. The guy has been screaming Armageddon anytime someone has let him near a computer yet he's defended to the hilt on here.

We can't on the one hand complain about every Tom, Dick and Harry ignoring lockdown and then also say well lockdown has worked... Clearly our infection rate has been much higher than other countries and clearly there is other forms of immunity than anti body creation.
 
I don't have a viewpoint. I think that rational voices like hers need to be listened to. That's all. Draw your own conclusions from what she says. In common with most people, I have people close to me who this virus would likely kill.
I think her voice is a perfectly reasonable one to listen to, I never at any point said it wasn't. She has an opinion and it may well turn out to be right, but as she says there would need to be more studies to find out. Again, I hope she is right and that her thinking along with others is correct.

I also have relatives who could potentially be in big trouble if they caught this but my viewpoint is that with cases and deaths decreasing we need to open things up. We can always introduce restrictions again if required but I don't understand why we are already roping ourselves into a 'new normal' when we don't yet know if it will be required.
 
Yet you completely ignore the abhorrent code that Ferguson's model was based on. The guy has been screaming Armageddon anytime someone has let him near a computer yet he's defended to the hilt on here.

We can't on the one hand complain about every Tom, Dick and Harry ignoring lockdown and then also say well lockdown has worked... Clearly our infection rate has been much higher than other countries and clearly there is other forms of immunity than anti body creation.
I'm not qualified to discuss the code, but I can spot mis-representation of a body of work. Ferguson's predictions were unlikely to have come as a surprise to government anyway, he was talking about 400,000 back in February in the public domain. And again, those numbers were in a 'do nothing' scenario which was never ever going to happen anyway due to natural human behaviour. Distancing was already happening before the government started to make announcements. I get frustrated at people saying "oh he predicted 500,000 deaths and there's only been 35,000". We were never going to be in a position where 500,000 deaths was likely to happen, but the press love to jump on it and use it as a stick to beat him with. In his suppression scenario (which we have been loosely following) he modelled it suggested around 20,000 deaths.

I haven't complained about people ignoring 'lockdown'.

Just because I think we were slow introducing distancing restrictions doesn't mean I think we should be staying in them now. With cases decreasing and deaths decreasing we should be opening shops, bars (initially with some restrictions in place) and if we have hit any kind of 'herd immunity' we will be in a good place going forward. If we haven't and cases rise we can re-introduce restrictions. Some people seem paralysed into this state of 'new normal' and it really might not be needed.

I hope the likes of Gupta and Sikora are correct, that would be great, but if you listen to them they "think", they "believe" that there are other forms of immunity that don't produce an antibody response, that there "could be" immunity gained from previous infection with other coronavirus'. That would be great and I think the way forward should be to open up and we'll find out in due course whilst being in the position to re-introduce measures if required.

As for your statement: "clearly there is other forms of immunity than anti body creation"..... please point me in the direction of those studies, would be great to see them.
 

FabioPorkpie

Well-known member
A drug is shown to significantly reduce lung fluid in mice in a simulated condition similar to the covid 19 effect on human lungs. Further trials required but it’s very promising -

“These data also suggest PneumoBlast™ may possess activity not only related to suppressing inflammation and fluid accumulation, but also to regenerating damage the COVID-19 virus causes to lungs. This is the best result we could have hoped for."

https://www.prnewswire.co.uk/news-r...rapy-pre-clinical-trial-phase--855981245.html
 
Top