SARS CoV-2 coronavirus / Covid-19 (No tin foil hat silliness please)

Wolverine said:
[


Surprising numbers - what it shows is how disastrous allowing covid to spread more across european communities would be given the number of deaths and only single digit seroprevalence to show for it
New York City residents with their dense population had something like 20% and they were the highest I can recall or rather have seen quoted, probably the reason death rates aren't higher there is due to demographics I'd think

I've heard it mentioned that you need a smaller number of immune patients to reach effective herd immunity threshold than you would for something like Measles and seen wide variations in percentages quoted but you'd need WAY more than the numbers listed above.

What it means I think is that this thing will be with us for a while with restrictions eased. Contact tracing, isolation of those infected, continued shielding unfortunately for the extremely vulnerable, mass testing and managing this thing at local levels in hot spots should now be prioritised rather than one-size-fits-all national-level guidelines which will be ignored en-masse anyway.
Click to expand...

That’s because measles is so insanely infective. I think the R0 is something like 12. The lower the R0 the lower the % you need infected to get herd immunity. Nobody knows the true R0 for sars-cov2 yet but even if it’s as low as 1 (unlikely) you’d need to reach 50%+ infected.

Having said that, even without herd immunity, the higher the previous exposure the smaller each subsequent outbreak.
 
Wolverine said:
[


Surprising numbers - what it shows is how disastrous allowing covid to spread more across european communities would be given the number of deaths and only single digit seroprevalence to show for it
New York City residents with their dense population had something like 20% and they were the highest I can recall or rather have seen quoted, probably the reason death rates aren't higher there is due to demographics I'd think

I've heard it mentioned that you need a smaller number of immune patients to reach effective herd immunity threshold than you would for something like Measles and seen wide variations in percentages quoted but you'd need WAY more than the numbers listed above.

What it means I think is that this thing will be with us for a while with restrictions eased. Contact tracing, isolation of those infected, continued shielding unfortunately for the extremely vulnerable, mass testing and managing this thing at local levels in hot spots should now be prioritised rather than one-size-fits-all national-level guidelines which will be ignored en-masse anyway.
Click to expand...
Why do you expect NYC to be more? Seems totally in line with everything, and already implies IFR > 1%. Maybe it is a tad less than Madrid, but as you said, it is expected because of younger population.

Also Stockholm with 7,3% is quite a long way from Tegnell's 26%. (Small sample size and those are people infected in early-mid April, and 26% was supposed to be on 1.5. but zero chance Tegnell is right.)
 
Sied said:
Wouldn't it be expected that Sweden would be higher given their comparative lack of lock down to Italy and Spain?
Click to expand...

They weren't in the same situation as Spain or Italy to start with so i wouldn't say so. Their lesser lockdown is demonstrated in their figures compared to their neighbours surely?

Taking those figures at face value Sweden have managed the same amount of people immune as Spain with nearly almost a tenth of the deaths then they're doing something very right. Perhaps it's just reflective of younger fitter people being infected though?
 
Smores said:
They weren't in the same situation as Spain or Italy to start with so i wouldn't say so. Their lesser lockdown is demonstrated in their figures compared to their neighbours surely?

Taking those figures at face value Sweden have managed the same amount of people immune as Spain with nearly almost a tenth of the deaths then they're doing something very right. Perhaps it's just reflective of younger fitter people being infected though?
Click to expand...
Let us never doubt @Regulus Arcturus Black again.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
That’s because measles is so insanely infective. I think the R0 is something like 12. The lower the R0 the lower the % you need infected to get herd immunity. Nobody knows the true R0 for sars-cov2 yet but even if it’s as low as 1 (unlikely) you’d need to reach 50%+ infected.

Having said that, even without herd immunity, the higher the previous exposure the smaller each subsequent outbreak.
Click to expand...

Yup. It just means that "taking it on the chin" was a potentially catastrophic theory put forward and I wonder how (if at all) Sir Patrick Vallance's perspective on herd immunity has shifted since then given these numbers. Can't ever see that >50% plus threshold being reached without a ginormous death toll. Must be kinda demoralising also for our spanish, italian colleagues and citizens for what they've had to endure and to come out it with only a 5% population immunity (if we can even say seroprevalance translates as short term and long term immunity)
 
sglowrider said:
My brother lives in Auckland. Apparently she wasn't doing so well until the Christchurch shooting and now this. Crisis star. Better leader than a manager?
Click to expand...

She was doing better than most leaders enen before then. The way she with the mosque massacre was truly admirable. Now she has approval rates of 92% just as she deserves.
 
Smores said:
They weren't in the same situation as Spain or Italy to start with so i wouldn't say so. Their lesser lockdown is demonstrated in their figures compared to their neighbours surely?

Taking those figures at face value Sweden have managed the same amount of people immune as Spain with nearly almost a tenth of the deaths then they're doing something very right. Perhaps it's just reflective of younger fitter people being infected though?
Click to expand...

Or differences in the way people live. Sweden is naturally socially distanced. Lower population density and lots of one person households. But, to be fair, they probably took that into account in their strategy. That’s a big take home from all of this. What works well in one country might not work well in every country.
 
Wolverine said:
While on the subject of seroprevalance
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...get-coronavirus-antibody-tests-from-next-week

Rumours today that antibody tests about to be rolled out to select NHS workers and care staff as well. There are online sources where people are sourcing them anyway but will also be sold apparently by Superdrug at a cost.
Click to expand...

Finally!! Then we can abandon Twitter speculation and get some proper stats from the hidden millions of asymptomatic sufferers (surely we'll all rush to buy from Superdrugs right?). Costs had better be low.

Wolves, do know what the accuracy on these kits will be? Are they the proper Roche ones?

Edit: OK, I've read the full article. I might be tempted at getting the tests done for four of us in the family. Two that are still suffering severe symptoms for months (my wife and daughter) and two that have no symptoms, me and my other daughter. I won't get my mum tested as we've been shielding her so don't believe she has been infected yet.
 
Last edited:
Pogue Mahone said:
Or differences in the way people live. Sweden is naturally socially distanced. Lower population density and lots of one person households. But, to be fair, they probably took that into account in their strategy. That’s a big take home from all of this. What works well in one country might not work well in every country.
Click to expand...
I think there's bound to be an influence of how much a population trusts its government. If you don't trust the government in general, why would you follow their guidance to the letter? I think the Scandinavian countries in general tend to be reasonably trustful of their governments.
 
Wibble said:
Here in Australia there was some mixed messaging but nowhere near the scale of the BoJo induced contradictory messaging chaos. And the response to breeches was simple. $1000 plus fine and/or arrested. When we opened a beach or two up and people didn't behave we closed them again. I can't stand our government and generally I wouldn't trust them to park my car but compared to BoJo and Trump they are a shining example of competence.

NZ are the lucky ones. Basically we should make Jacinda Ardern Emperor of the Universe.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Australia have fewer cases and fewer deaths per capita than NZ? The feting of her by the media is a bit weird tbh (given eg complete silence in Britain about how well Australia has done).
 
Dumbstar said:
Finally!! Then we can abandon Twitter speculation and get some proper stats from the hidden millions of asymptomatic sufferers (surely we'll all rush to buy from Superdrugs right?). Costs had better be low.

Wolves, do know what the accuracy on these kits will be? Are they the proper Roche ones?

Edit: OK, I've read the full article. I might be tempted at getting the tests done for four of us in the family. Two that are still suffering severe symptoms for months (my wife and daughter) and two that have no symptoms, me and my other daughter. I won't get my mum tested as we've been shielding her so don't believe she has been infected yet.
Click to expand...

It'll be either Abbott or Roche both of which have been evaluated and approved by Public Health England and have high sensitivity and specificity claims.

But as Pogue's mentioned before, its the specificity that's crucial to look out for in terms of potential immunity/reassurance as it tells us the proportion of people who test negative, out of the population who should have tested negative. In the case of the Roche test, their alleged specificity of 99.81% tells us that about 2 in 1000 people (0.2%) tested positive with the antibody test, even though they should have tested negative so you can say that out of 500 people that have taken the antibody test, 499 have antibodies.

Similarly the BabylonHealth company has said for the fingerprick Abbott test, the specificity is 99.5% (its available for 69 pounds online)

Questions remain though about is there a good evidence-base to say do these antibodies last? Do they truly protect people from re-infection? How long do they protect people from re-infection? Are there are demographic difference in these things? Do they protect against high viral loads (e.g. in inpatient settings for hospital workers) or is it just for community settings/transmission?

I'll take the test but even if I test positive for the antibody pretty sure I won't compromise on the PPE and demands for it, and neither do I think will most frontline staff

I mean even on babylonhealth website where they are selling this they are clear
https://www.babylonhealth.com/coronavirus/covid-19-antibody-test
As COVID-19 is a new disease, we don’t yet know if having these IgG antibodies means you are immune or how long you might be immune for.
Click to expand...
 
T00lsh3d said:
Yes. Don’t know about you but I’m run into the ground. It’s unreal to think of people getting the break of their lives on 80% pay, whilst the ones that are working will need a month or so to recover from the crippling workload they’ve had
Click to expand...

I’m in the same boat and exactly why I have resentment over the masses taking a day to the beach.
 
Wolverine said:
It'll be either Abbott or Roche both of which have been evaluated and approved by Public Health England and have high sensitivity and specificity claims.

But as Pogue's mentioned before, its the specificity that's crucial to look out for in terms of potential immunity/reassurance as it tells us the proportion of people who test negative, out of the population who should have tested negative. In the case of the Roche test, their alleged specificity of 99.81% tells us that about 2 in 1000 people (0.2%) tested positive with the antibody test, even though they should have tested negative so you can say that out of 500 people that have taken the antibody test, 499 have antibodies.

Similarly the BabylonHealth company has said for the fingerprick Abbott test, the specificity is 99.5% (its available for 69 pounds online)

Questions remain though about is there a good evidence-base to say do these antibodies last? Do they truly protect people from re-infection? How long do they protect people from re-infection? Are there are demographic difference in these things? Do they protect against high viral loads (e.g. in inpatient settings for hospital workers) or is it just for community settings/transmission?

I'll take the test but even if I test positive for the antibody pretty sure I won't compromise on the PPE and demands for it, and neither do I think will most frontline staff

I mean even on babylonhealth website where they are selling this they are clear
https://www.babylonhealth.com/coronavirus/covid-19-antibody-test
Click to expand...

£69? The robbing b*******!
 
Dumbstar said:
Finally!! Then we can abandon Twitter speculation and get some proper stats from the hidden millions of asymptomatic sufferers (surely we'll all rush to buy from Superdrugs right?). Costs had better be low.

Wolves, do know what the accuracy on these kits will be? Are they the proper Roche ones?

Edit: OK, I've read the full article. I might be tempted at getting the tests done for four of us in the family. Two that are still suffering severe symptoms for months (my wife and daughter) and two that have no symptoms, me and my other daughter. I won't get my mum tested as we've been shielding her so don't believe she has been infected yet.
Click to expand...
Sorry to hear they are still suffering, have the symptoms changed at all ?
 
Maagge said:
I think there's bound to be an influence of how much a population trusts its government. If you don't trust the government in general, why would you follow their guidance to the letter? I think the Scandinavian countries in general tend to be reasonably trustful of their governments.
Click to expand...

That’s true. Might also explain why Belgium did so badly. Didn’t they basically not have any government for most of last year?
 
Pogue Mahone said:
No idea who @unherd is but that Prof is an odd chap. Doesn’t seem very interested in digging into the science. Only ever tweets or retweets good news stories, even wildly implausible one.
Click to expand...
He's done okay with his forecasts so far.

 
Penna said:
They're going to do 150,000 tests here in Italy from 25 May, for research purposes.
Click to expand...

They have already been doing them in some of the regions. In Lombardy we were supposed to be getting licences for travel if we had antibodies but they changed it to 'research purposes' when they realised they couldn't trust the results.
 
Wolverine said:
It'll be either Abbott or Roche both of which have been evaluated and approved by Public Health England and have high sensitivity and specificity claims.

But as Pogue's mentioned before, its the specificity that's crucial to look out for in terms of potential immunity/reassurance as it tells us the proportion of people who test negative, out of the population who should have tested negative. In the case of the Roche test, their alleged specificity of 99.81% tells us that about 2 in 1000 people (0.2%) tested positive with the antibody test, even though they should have tested negative so you can say that out of 500 people that have taken the antibody test, 499 have antibodies.

Similarly the BabylonHealth company has said for the fingerprick Abbott test, the specificity is 99.5% (its available for 69 pounds online)

Questions remain though about is there a good evidence-base to say do these antibodies last? Do they truly protect people from re-infection? How long do they protect people from re-infection? Are there are demographic difference in these things? Do they protect against high viral loads (e.g. in inpatient settings for hospital workers) or is it just for community settings/transmission?

I'll take the test but even if I test positive for the antibody pretty sure I won't compromise on the PPE and demands for it, and neither do I think will most frontline staff

I mean even on babylonhealth website where they are selling this they are clear
https://www.babylonhealth.com/coronavirus/covid-19-antibody-test
Click to expand...

How big a sample size did Roche base their results on? I thought I read it some where where it was tiny?
 
338 deaths today in all settings, imagine that's another decent drop from this time last week.
 
T00lsh3d said:
Don’t know about you, but I’ve got furlough envy :lol::lol:
Click to expand...

I kinda do, especially now the golf courses are open.

I also think I'm lucky aswell, the first 6-7 weeks with nothing open would have drove me insane, Ive partially enjoyed my normality of working and taking the kids to school.

Still, I wouldn't mind laying in bed till 10am, getting up and playing golf, getting home, getting drunk and repeating.
 
Pogue Mahone said:
No idea who @unherd is but that Prof is an odd chap. Doesn’t seem very interested in digging into the science. Only ever tweets or retweets good news stories, even implausible one.
Click to expand...

Unherd is a website that collates usually contrarian-ish opinion pieces from columnists, it can be along the lines of cultural war anti-PC stuff ala Douglas Murray but Tom Chivers posts some decent things on there

Incidentally there is a massive problem of certain doctors inserting themselves into the debates via podcasts, videos that is sometimes things that is half true, whole lie or dangerous batshit crazy Andrew Wakefield level of shit and what they say gets spread a lot on Whatsapp groups and social media. I've seen two american ER physicians say some kooky things, a colorectal surgeon in the UK who was insane off the top of my head. Its usually by virtue of using medical lingo, an unknowing and unchallenging soft-ball question asking host that they spout off inaccurate shit uninterrupted.

And also just learnt yesterday about a pro-Trump group of physicians part of an official sounding Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) who are essentially a conservative thinktank but technically physicians saying batshit crazy things too - among their greatest hits in the past have been assertions of autism-MMR link, HIV denialism and also Obama hypnotising voters to vote for him.Seen their articles shared widely on twitter on hydroxychloroquine.
 
Berbaclass said:
Seen this other one in the comments :wenger:

Click to expand...

:lol: that second video in particular is actually quite something. The first guy can be sort of excused because he seems a bit simple in general.
That woman and her family though, the lack of self awareness is astonishing. The hour and a half drive, the fact her they’re basically rubbing against each other. It could actually just be comedy.
 
Leroy The Red said:
:lol: that second video in particular is actually quite something. The first guy can be sort of excused because he seems a bit simple in general.
That woman and her family though, the lack of self awareness is astonishing.
Click to expand...

My thoughts too, the first bloke looks like he is hoping another lockdown happens so he can have more time off work
 
massi83 said:
He said on 29.3. that 50% might have been infected? And you think his forecasts are good? Wow. I don't think more needs to be said.
Click to expand...
It's no worse than the people who claim a "second wave is coming" when some restrictions are eased.
 
Wibble said:
NZ are the lucky ones. Basically we should make Jacinda Ardern Emperor of the Universe.
Click to expand...

NZ should be given credit as a nation for voting the right way a few years back.

As you’ll know, NZ right wing isn’t UK/USA right wing, everything is a little further left.

But they voted out a government that would have been far more likely to mirror the UK/US response. Economy led. We know best. Secretive. Blameless.

Jacinda is fabulous though. Fortunate to meet her a couple of times. Good egg.
 


Relatively lowish cases again. Good to see multiple days 2k test positive.
 
Beaches in North Wales are still really quiet , thankfully. Go on the beach most days and don't see a soul . I was fishing from 5 o'clock until 10 last night with my son and a mate and we only saw one dog walker the whole time . There are 150 empty holiday homes in the village we were in last night.
 
sglowrider said:
How big a sample size did Roche base their results on? I thought I read it some where where it was tiny?
Click to expand...

https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm
Specificity was determined with 5272 samples, sensitivity at the >14 day post PCR confirmation was with 29 patients though
95444688_10157493749967473_2720165765385814016_o.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.