Now they say 17% have had the Virus

#41
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%.
Will be good news if that is the case. Yet I fear even if/when we get more evidence of this people are already paralysed into fear. Plans are being made for the 'new normal', people confidently predicting that we won't have crowds or sporting events for years, newspaper headlines proclaiming Germany's rises cases (they're decreasing)….. its nuts.

My company has gone completely mad.... We have been working throughout (with distancing) and now suddenly there are notices on computer logins, massive "stay alert" notices on the desktops, one way systems to enter our chemical stores....totally bonkers.
 

Alvez_48

Active member
#42
I agree (sort of). Mathematical modelling should be used/relied upon in the absence of robust data, it's not a replacement for it.

I wouldn't have used Redwurzel's method for calculating the infection level locally, I was merely showing what happens if you use a different set of assumptions (including the correct population figures).

But we don't need to undertake such modelling, as we have the results from several weeks' antibody testing. Those show that 17% of the London population and 5% of the rest of the country have so far been infected.
You are in such denial that you tried to shoot a man down using official figures.. give your head a shake man. At what point do you begin to accept that it's not as bad you keep saying it is.
 

Billy Horner

Well-known member
#43
You are in such denial that you tried to shoot a man down using official figures.. give your head a shake man. At what point do you begin to accept that it's not as bad you keep saying it is.
What on earth are you on about now? Who did I "shoot down" and what "official statistics" were they using?

Also, I think that deep down you know that I'm not the one who is in denial.

You claimed from the outset that the disease wasn't as deadly as the WHO and others were stating it was. When the death tolls kept mounting, you tried to explain that away by stating the virus must be so infectious that at least 50% of the population must have already been infected (that was back in April).

Now the serology results are showing that about 17% of the population in London and 5% in the rest of the country have already had the virus, I see you have invented the concept of natural immunity as a sticking plaster to cover the latest gaping hole in your argument.

There's only one of us who keeps changing the focus of their argument as the data completely undermines them, and it isn't me.
 
#44
The other interesting thing about the Diamond Princess figures is that 81% of the passenger avoided the virus which suggests there is significant natural immunity
Whilst I think your analysis of the Diamond Princess is a reasonable take, I'd suggest the figures don't reflect the aged population quite as well as you make out. I'd hazard a guess that not many of those on board were in some of the more severe underlying condition groups. It's self-selecting for a reasonable level of health/fitness just to be on the cruise in the first place.
 

Redwurzel

Active member
#45
Not care home types I agree, (which is age 83 plus nowadays).

The bulk of passengers would have been 50-80 - an above average risk group for this virus, even when they have reasonable health. Enough for me to put say at least 25% extra risk on the chance of dying which would take 0.85% down to something like 0.62% when trying to calculating true fatality for the virus. A cruise ship must be an ideal breeding ground for the virus even when passengers try to keep to their cabins as much as possible.

My 0.4% was too low - its probably between 0.5% and 0.75% in a developed country with decent medical facilities. That's the rate for dying when infected. If only 20% catch it the rate is 0.125 to 0.15% of the whole population or 82,500 to 99,000 people in the UK. Most people agree around 50,000 have already died directly of CV-19 in the UK (remember for a long time only hospital deaths were recorded in the headline rate).
 
Last edited:
Top