Now they say 17% have had the Virus

Redwurzel

Active member
#1
I notice today the experts are saying 17% of people in London have had the Virus - quite a jump from 10% a few days ago - this time they think the figures are more accurate, but could be 4 weeks out of date, so it will be higher by now.

The rest of the country is officially 5% but will catch up to the London figure with time, so in say 2 weeks time will be 17% too.

I have been posting for over a month that the 4% figure infection rate was wrong, based on number of UK CV19 deaths and quoted fatality rate, say approx. 50,000 deaths (remember some CV deaths are not officially recorded) multiplied by 250 fatality rate (0.004) = 12.5m infections = 19% of the UK population.
 
#2
17% in London, may be much less elsewhere. All based on antibody studies. Hopefully that is a 'lower bound' as some have suggested and that there is greater spread of the virus and population immunity due to other immune pathways and potential immunity from having previously being infected with other coronavirus's. Not enough evidence yet but it is the view of some. Would be good news.
 

asredastheycome

Well-known member
#3
If 17% has had the virus in London and the rest of the country will catch up in a couple of weeks this lock down has been a waste of time then. Supposing a big percentage of the country is locked down how are the rates jumping up so quickly. Is it coming down their chimneys. I think a lot of these figure appertaining to the pandemic are just pulled out of hats. How are they getting these figures when it takes about 3-4 weeks for the antibodies to show(thats if they are antibody tests).
 

bear66

Well-known member
#4
I notice today the experts are saying 17% of people in London have had the Virus - quite a jump from 10% a few days ago - this time they think the figures are more accurate, but could be 4 weeks out of date, so it will be higher by now.

The rest of the country is officially 5% but will catch up to the London figure with time, so in say 2 weeks time will be 17% too.

I have been posting for over a month that the 4% figure infection rate was wrong, based on number of UK CV19 deaths and quoted fatality rate, say approx. 50,000 deaths (remember some CV deaths are not officially recorded) multiplied by 250 fatality rate (0.004) = 12.5m infections = 19% of the UK population.
London was said to be 15% a week ago. Infection rates slowing significantly. I don't believe R is approximately 4 to get the rest of the country catching up in two weeks.
 

dooderooni

Well-known member
#5
One study says only 7.5% of Stockholm residents have antibodies present despite their relaxed lockdown approach. Even allowing for a big margin of error that puts herd immunity as far away as a working vaccine.

Link
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
#6
I notice today the experts are saying 17% of people in London have had the Virus - quite a jump from 10% a few days ago - this time they think the figures are more accurate, but could be 4 weeks out of date, so it will be higher by now.

The rest of the country is officially 5% but will catch up to the London figure with time, so in say 2 weeks time will be 17% too.

I have been posting for over a month that the 4% figure infection rate was wrong, based on number of UK CV19 deaths and quoted fatality rate, say approx. 50,000 deaths (remember some CV deaths are not officially recorded) multiplied by 250 fatality rate (0.004) = 12.5m infections = 19% of the UK population.
There's also evidence emerging that for many you simply won't get antibodies as an anti body response is not required to fight off the virus .. essentially the virologists/epidemiologists/Nobel prize winners that have come out and said that the governments reactions are over the top are being proved correct.
The infection numbers will be dropping now whatever we do.
The let's call it phase 1 of the lockdown literally only had the effect of prolonging the tail of the virus and we should look to open up as much as possible to stave off the already catastrophic economic damage.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
#8
There is a lot of conflicting evidence, absoloutely. I wouldn't be going out and about if I was old, that is for sure.

The one thing that you cannot get away from is our death toll. If lockdown made no difference, why are registered deaths in-line with a nations lockdown policy? I cannot find a good answer to that question.
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
#9
Herd immunity is 60% so why that matters I don't understand.
From my laymans knowledge if you think of the 60% of people with general immunity rather than anti body immunity.
So say 25% of people gain antibodies but a further 35% have natural immunity via t cells, immunity from other coronavirus (such as common cold). You could get to 60% without ever knowing you had 60%. Does that make sense?

There is a lot of conflicting evidence, absoloutely. I wouldn't be going out and about if I was old, that is for sure.

The one thing that you cannot get away from is our death toll. If lockdown made no difference, why are registered deaths in-line with a nations lockdown policy? I cannot find a good answer to that question.
I agree I wouldn't either.. I'd be taking care if I was young also to isolate if I had any symptoms and to socially distance where possible.
In terms of your last point. I would argue that the deaths peaked before lockdown had impact. This is of course theoretical but I believe that you'd be around the same deaths in total now but with less daily deaths as the curve would have been steeper on both sides.
We really should have attempted to ask care home workers to remain locked in with care home residents, any residents tested positive should have been taken to somewhere to try to recover away from other residents (preferably 5 star hotels with cpap machines), the testing should have focused on their carers also to ensure that we gave those people as much protection as possible.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
#10
You may well be right Alvez. but that would mean that there were other reasons for wildly differring death rates country to country. We just don't know enough about the virus and I guess you make the best decisions you can, given the available evidence. That might be the least bad decision.

We will certainly continue to learn about the virus, of that there is no doubt.
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
#11
I have a nagging feeling that new Zealand and Australia have a problem going forward..
How long can they feasibly not have international inbound and outbound travel for?
Heading into their flu season as well (which could in coming years be known as the Corona/flu season quite possibly)..
 
#12
From my laymans knowledge if you think of the 60% of people with general immunity rather than anti body immunity.
So say 25% of people gain antibodies but a further 35% have natural immunity via t cells, immunity from other coronavirus (such as common cold). You could get to 60% without ever knowing you had 60%. Does that make sense?



I agree I wouldn't either.. I'd be taking care if I was young also to isolate if I had any symptoms and to socially distance where possible.
In terms of your last point. I would argue that the deaths peaked before lockdown had impact. This is of course theoretical but I believe that you'd be around the same deaths in total now but with less daily deaths as the curve would have been steeper on both sides.
We really should have attempted to ask care home workers to remain locked in with care home residents, any residents tested positive should have been taken to somewhere to try to recover away from other residents (preferably 5 star hotels with cpap machines), the testing should have focused on their carers also to ensure that we gave those people as much protection as possible.
Testing doesn't come into it unfortunately, like PPE it was absent when it was essential.

In reality what happened was those showing symptoms but not critical were shipped out of hospital beds and into care homes.

I agree about the hotels being used for isolation.

We didn't do enough immediately due to worry about profit impact.
 

Cardiffdaffs

Well-known member
#13
I have a nagging feeling that new Zealand and Australia have a problem going forward..
How long can they feasibly not have international inbound and outbound travel for?
Heading into their flu season as well (which could in coming years be known as the Corona/flu season quite possibly)..
Longer than you think. If you are talking about tourism apart from China, Australians are the single biggest tourist in NZ and they will be welcoming them. As for Chinese tourists I think that problem will not be exclusive to NZ or Australia for years to come.
 
Last edited:

Alvez_48

Well-known member
#14
Longer than you think. If you are talking about tourism apart from China, Australians are the single biggest tourist in NZ and they will be welcoming them. As for Chinese tourists I think that problem will not be exclusive to NZ or Australia for years to come.
Fair enough 👍🏻
 
#15
I've seen the antibody test results and they are rubbish. It's nowhere near the 100% accurate claims that have been made. They'll be under-reporting, which is better than over-reporting at least.
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
#16
Testing doesn't come into it unfortunately, like PPE it was absent when it was essential.

In reality what happened was those showing symptoms but not critical were shipped out of hospital beds and into care homes.

I agree about the hotels being used for isolation.

We didn't do enough immediately due to worry about profit impact.
They did a piece on the care homes yesterday on radio 2 and care homes apparently had the option NOT to take in people from hospitals with suspected covid-19. One manager who rang in even referred to the ambulances used to bring these people into care homes as 'covy ambulances', another caller who was the manager of a home that looked after those with dementia told she flat out refused to take in people from hospitals when asked.

Do we now need to direct some of our anger to some of these care home managers who could be complicit in taking in infected patients? What about the doctors who have actively sent these people back out into the community? I get it goes against the grain of the current deserved goodwill towards the NHS but it's not as of Hancock is personally sending these folks back although he is ultimately the one at fault as the leader.
 

Laughing

Well-known member
#17
Randy you may be right but, clinicians were given a directive and followed it so it would be unfair to blame the doctors. The programme you listened to, I am not sure about the covenance but I did read about one care home actively having to barricade the ambulance to stop the patient returning, so I am not sure about that.
 

Alvez_48

Well-known member
#18
I've seen the antibody test results and they are rubbish. It's nowhere near the 100% accurate claims that have been made. They'll be under-reporting, which is better than over-reporting at least.
I saw the 100% figure bandied about the Roche test.
Out of interest what makes you question it? Personal experience or research?
 

RandySavage

Well-known member
#19
Randy you may be right but, clinicians were given a directive and followed it so it would be unfair to blame the doctors. The programme you listened to, I am not sure about the covenance but I did read about one care home actively having to barricade the ambulance to stop the patient returning, so I am not sure about that.
Of course there will be different scenarios in different care homes. Mainly just posted for balance. There are many people to blame for the care home crisis.
 

Redwurzel

Active member
#20
Ref Herd immunity - 30% was enough to halt the spread of Spanish flu in 1918/19 so to me 17% is significant. Notice there were no hospital CV19 admissions in London on one day earlier this week, in a population of nearly 9m people despite lock down measures coming off and more people returning to work.

I also don't believe it can be 17% in London and 5% elsewhere, my guess is the else where is higher than 5%. Look at South Tees - 230 deaths? multiplied by 250 for infections = 57500 in a catchment area of 350000? = approximately 16.4% have been infected.

On BBC News Channel - The Swedish virus expert thought Sweden had 10% infection rate and they are 2 weeks behind us. He also was adamant that you can't catch CV19 twice. He said herd immunity was a key way to get rid of the virus.

What we have learnt? - CV19 spreads extremely easily, much more easily than many other viruses, but its not as fatal (say around 1 in 250 effected) as many serious viruses.

For approximately 50% of people there are no symptoms and only small symptoms for many of the rest. Evidence Watford player saying he was perfectly fine and had been rarely out of the house, but he tested positive. Earlier this week another 5 people in Premiership clubs tested positive without showing any obvious signs. Because it is invisible for many it spreads more easily as the infected often don't realise they are spreading it.

Maybe the way to proceeed his herd immunity for the majority of the population, but lock down for high risk groups until there is a vaccine.
 
Top