[News] The Coronavirus Good News thread

[Green Cross Code Man]

The suggestion is virus transmission started to fall BEFORE the lockdown was put in place.

Perhaps the virus is seasonal after all then?

 

[atomised]

Really interesting information there. The figures certainly seem more positive

 

[Bozza]

Perhaps the virus is seasonal after all then?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I think it's more that the actions that the population were already taking was driving down transmission rates, but because of the lag from infection -> getting ill -> requiring hospitalisation -> death, that could not be detected until much later.

A word of caution: the main guy being interviewed is from the University of Oxford (note: NOT Oxford University) and looks like the same story has been on a lot of the tabloid sites today, a quick Google reveals. I can't see the story being run by more serious publications, eg: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rt-argues-draconian-measures-unnecessary.html

It comes as a leading expert at the University of Oxford has argued the peak was actually about a month ago, a week before lockdown started on March 23, and that the draconian measures people are now living with were unnecessary.

Professor Carl Heneghan claims data shows infection rates halved after the Government launched a public information campaign on March 16 urging people to wash their hands and keep two metres (6'6") away from others.

He said ministers 'lost sight' of the evidence and rushed into a nationwide quarantine six days later after being instructed by scientific advisers who he claims have been 'consistently wrong' during the crisis.

Professor Heneghan hailed Sweden - which has not enforced a lockdown despite fierce criticism - for 'holding its nerve' and avoiding a 'doomsday scenario'. The country has recorded just 392 new patients and 40 deaths today, approximately 10 per cent of the UK's figures. Britain's diagnoses have not been announced yet.

In separate research, the Oxford professor said he estimates that the true death rate among people who catch the virus is between 0.1 and 0.36 per cent, considerably lower than the 13 per cent currently playing out in the UK.​

 

[atomised]

That suggested percentage of those dying seems very low. Is the current rate inflated to anything like that level because we are testing cases that tend to be fairly serious anyway

 

[Bozza]

Antibody testing in Los Angeles county suggests loads more people than thought have had it, meaning death rates are far lower than stated official numbers (I think we all suspected that anyway, as oft-discussed), but it's good to see some hard data coming out around this...

Click through to read the tweet thread:

[tweet]1252328734004097029[/tweet]

 

[Bakero]

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

I think it's more that the actions that the population were already taking was driving down transmission rates, but because of the lag from infection -> getting ill -> requiring hospitalisation -> death, that could not be detected until much later.

A word of caution: the main guy being interviewed is from the University of Oxford (note: NOT Oxford University) and looks like the same story has been on a lot of the tabloid sites today, a quick Google reveals. I can't see the story being run by more serious publications, eg: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...rt-argues-draconian-measures-unnecessary.html

It comes as a leading expert at the University of Oxford has argued the peak was actually about a month ago, a week before lockdown started on March 23, and that the draconian measures people are now living with were unnecessary.

Professor Carl Heneghan claims data shows infection rates halved after the Government launched a public information campaign on March 16 urging people to wash their hands and keep two metres (6'6") away from others.

He said ministers 'lost sight' of the evidence and rushed into a nationwide quarantine six days later after being instructed by scientific advisers who he claims have been 'consistently wrong' during the crisis.

Professor Heneghan hailed Sweden - which has not enforced a lockdown despite fierce criticism - for 'holding its nerve' and avoiding a 'doomsday scenario'. The country has recorded just 392 new patients and 40 deaths today, approximately 10 per cent of the UK's figures. Britain's diagnoses have not been announced yet.

In separate research, the Oxford professor said he estimates that the true death rate among people who catch the virus is between 0.1 and 0.36 per cent, considerably lower than the 13 per cent currently playing out in the UK.​

It's late so maybe I'm being stupid, but I don't get your word of caution.

 

[Bozza]

It's late so maybe I'm being stupid, but I don't get your word of caution.

It just strikes me as a little odd that the bloke in question seems to have only made it to the tabloids - the papers/sites that we'd probably all exercise caution over - rather than the likes of the Guardian.

Or if his research has made it to the Guardian I can't see it. But, as you say - it's late and I can't be bothered to search for it!

Some interesting stuff on his twitter account anyway, linking to his research etc:

https://twitter.com/carlheneghan

Of most relevance, probably, is the explanation as to how each day's death figures relate to days in the past - most of them aren't yesterday's numbers, and the aggregate graph he's produced from that - https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-death-data-in-england-update-2th-april/

 

[Kinky Gerbil]

Antibody testing in Los Angeles county suggests loads more people than thought have had it, meaning death rates are far lower than stated official numbers (I think we all suspected that anyway, as oft-discussed), but it's good to see some hard data coming out around this...

Click through to read the tweet thread:

[tweet]1252328734004097029[/tweet]

If that’s accurate, that’s pretty big news.

It’s nowhere near as deadly as suspected.

 

[The Wizard]

A note of caution on those antibodies studies, I was reading about another study done by the same people in Santa Clara, that come back with between 3-5% also however it has been widely criticised after they apparently tested people who ‘suspected’ they might have had it, and not people at random. I’m not sure if this one was the same, hopefully not as unless you’re testing a random sample it’s a pointless experiment.

You’d hope they’ve done it properly as I doubt this is cheap research.

 

[Mellotron]

Antibody testing in Los Angeles county suggests loads more people than thought have had it, meaning death rates are far lower than stated official numbers (I think we all suspected that anyway, as oft-discussed), but it's good to see some hard data coming out around this...

Click through to read the tweet thread:

[tweet]1252328734004097029[/tweet]

And this of course wouldn’t account for the burgeoning theory that a number of people who have had it don’t have antibodies showing in their system afterwards? Unless the South Korean tests aren’t reliable...

 

[pb21]

Antibody testing in Los Angeles county suggests loads more people than thought have had it, meaning death rates are far lower than stated official numbers (I think we all suspected that anyway, as oft-discussed), but it's good to see some hard data coming out around this...

Click through to read the tweet thread:

[tweet]1252328734004097029[/tweet]

And this of course wouldn’t account for the burgeoning theory that a number of people who have had it don’t have antibodies showing in their system afterwards? Unless the South Korean tests aren’t reliable...

That IFR would suggest that between ~70 and 100% of the population of New York State has been infected (19,000 deaths, ~19 million people).

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

Heard one UK expert yesterday (and I can't remember which one - who knew there were so many!) saying that a quick and dirty way of ascertaining the extent of UK citizens with immunity through infection would be simply take a random sample of 1000 and test them. Sounds like sense?

A number of posters have talked about their own possible early infection. I had what I thought the time was a nasty dose of flu in Feb which (in retrospect) corresponded to the descriptors of the Covid virus. I've only just realised (I'm a bit slow) that I had a flu jab a couple of months earlier. Of course this proves nothing (other than that I'm a bit slow).

 

[Postman Pat]

It just strikes me as a little odd that the bloke in question seems to have only made it to the tabloids - the papers/sites that we'd probably all exercise caution over - rather than the likes of the Guardian.

Or if his research has made it to the Guardian I can't see it. But, as you say - it's late and I can't be bothered to search for it!

Well he was on newsnight last night, so depends where you rank that in terms of legitimacy or if he was just providing 'balance'

 

[dazzer6666]

Heard one UK expert yesterday (and I can't remember which one - who knew there were so many!) saying that a quick and dirty way of ascertaining the extent of UK citizens with immunity through infection would be simply take a random sample of 1000 and test them. Sounds like sense?

A number of posters have talked about their own possible early infection. I had what I thought the time was a nasty dose of flu in Feb which (in retrospect) corresponded to the descriptors of the Covid virus. I've only just realised (I'm a bit slow) that I had a flu jab a couple of months earlier. Of course this proves nothing (other than that I'm a bit slow).

How though, without a reliable antibody test ?

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

How though, without a reliable antibody test ?

Good point.

a) Maybe he was trying to identify current asymptomatic carriers

b) Maybe he wasn't such an expert

c) Maybe (OK, almost certainly) I'm not only slow but also dim.

But it's being done elsewhere?

 

[dazzer6666]

Good point.

a) Maybe he was trying to identify current asymptomatic carriers

b) Maybe he wasn't such an expert

c) Maybe (OK, almost certainly) I'm not only slow but also dim.

But it's being done elsewhere?

I'm no expert either but.....

a) Wouldn't you need a reliable antibody test to determine that ? (Unless they were still carrying, in which case that's the standard - antigen - test)
b) Dunno
c) Surely not

....there seem to quite a few reports of antibody testing but the results are all over the place - some reporting very high levels of infection and some almost none. All a bit confusing.

 

[Garry Nelson's teacher]

I'm no expert either but.....

a) Wouldn't you need a reliable antibody test to determine that ? (Unless they were still carrying, in which case that's the standard - antigen - test)
b) Dunno
c) Surely not

....there seem to quite a few reports of antibody testing but the results are all over the place - some reporting very high levels of infection and some almost none. All a bit confusing.

Agree with your point about 'confusing'. There comes a time when it really is a case of 'over to the experts' and the likes of me go back to the 'World Test X1' thread where I can fool myself that I know what I'm talking about.

 

[Bozza]

Well he was on newsnight last night, so depends where you rank that in terms of legitimacy or if he was just providing 'balance'

Yes, I know he was - that's where this started with my contribution to this thread last night, based on what he was saying.

Heard one UK expert yesterday (and I can't remember which one - who knew there were so many!) saying that a quick and dirty way of ascertaining the extent of UK citizens with immunity through infection would be simply take a random sample of 1000 and test them. Sounds like sense?

A number of posters have talked about their own possible early infection. I had what I thought the time was a nasty dose of flu in Feb which (in retrospect) corresponded to the descriptors of the Covid virus. I've only just realised (I'm a bit slow) that I had a flu jab a couple of months earlier. Of course this proves nothing (other than that I'm a bit slow).

It's one and the same Carl Hereghan that we've been talking about.

 

[Postman Pat]

Yes, I know he was - that's where this started with my contribution to this thread last night, based on what he was saying.

Apologies, only saw the comment on tabloids, not newsnight.

On a different matter: (CNN)When an outbreak of coronavirus in a Boston homeless shelter prompted officials to do more testing, the results caught them off guard. Of the 146 people who tested positive, all of them were considered asymptomatic.

"These are larger numbers than we ever anticipated," said Dr. Jim O'Connell, president of the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. "Asymptomatic spread is something we've underestimated overall, and it's going to make a big difference."

Is this a third potential solution? Not stopping the disease by cure or vaccine, but finding out what makes it asymptomatic in people so it can't actually do any harm?

You would assume 146 homeless people wouldn't be in the best of health, so why didnt it affect them at all?

Would be brilliant if the solution to this was large amounts of alcohol!

 

[blue-shifted]

Apologies, only saw the comment on tabloids, not newsnight.

On a different matter: (CNN)When an outbreak of coronavirus in a Boston homeless shelter prompted officials to do more testing, the results caught them off guard. Of the 146 people who tested positive, all of them were considered asymptomatic.

"These are larger numbers than we ever anticipated," said Dr. Jim O'Connell, president of the Boston Health Care for the Homeless Program. "Asymptomatic spread is something we've underestimated overall, and it's going to make a big difference."

Is this a third potential solution? Not stopping the disease by cure or vaccine, but finding out what makes it asymptomatic in people so it can't actually do any harm?

You would assume 146 homeless people wouldn't be in the best of health, so why didnt it affect them at all?

Would be brilliant if the solution to this was large amounts of alcohol!

Smack and special brew on the NHS. Can't see there being any issues with side effects