Fascinating Story in the FT

[The Camel]

https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a...egmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a

New study suggests upto 50% of the population might have already suffered CV and not got ill.

The test for antibodies will be the game changer. Within 100 tests we'll know if we've got herd immunity already.

 

[Mellotron]

https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a...egmentId=d8d3e364-5197-20eb-17cf-2437841d178a

New study suggests upto 50% of the population might have already suffered CV and not got ill.

The test for antibodies will be the game changer. Within 100 tests we'll know if we've got herd immunity already.

50% sounds a bit high, but the studies in Italy and China certainly hint that a far, far, far higher number of people will get this asymptomatically than was previously thought.

However, how does their 50% theory tally with the fact there has only been 8,000 odd confirmed cases from the 30,000 or so completed?

Article is behind a paywall.

 

[Swansman]

Realistically there must be HUGE variations in regions, different demographics etc?

And if 50% of the population (sounds too much but what do I know) have got this, the majority of them should have got it in the last two weeks - meaning its too early to say if theyre going to be sick or not.

But yeah that antibodies test cant come soon enough.

 

[The Camel]

Copy and pasted the story




The new coronavirus may already have infected far more people in the UK than scientists had previously estimated — perhaps as much as half the population — according to modelling by researchers at the University of Oxford.

If the results are confirmed, they imply that fewer than one in a thousand of those infected with Covid-19 become ill enough to need hospital treatment, said Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology, who led the study. The vast majority develop very mild symptoms or none at all.

“We need immediately to begin large-scale serological surveys — antibody testing — to assess what stage of the epidemic we are in now,” she said.

The modelling by Oxford’s Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease group indicates that Covid-19 reached the UK by mid-January at the latest. Like many emerging infections, it spread invisibly for more than a month before the first transmissions within the UK were officially recorded at the end of February.

The research presents a very different view of the epidemic to the modelling at Imperial College London, which has strongly influenced government policy. “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” said Prof Gupta.

However, she was reluctant to criticise the government for shutting down the country to suppress viral spread, because the accuracy of the Oxford model has not yet been confirmed and, even if it is correct, social distancing will reduce the number of people becoming seriously ill and relieve severe pressure on the NHS during the peak of the epidemic.

The Oxford study is based on a what is known as a “susceptibility-infected-recovered model” of Covid-19, built up from case and death reports from the UK and Italy. The researchers made what they regard as the most plausible assumptions about the behaviour of the virus.

The modelling brings back into focus “herd immunity”, the idea that the virus will stop spreading when enough people have become resistant to it because they have already been infected. The government abandoned its unofficial herd immunity strategy — allowing controlled spread of infection — after its scientific advisers said this would swamp the National Health Service with critically ill patients.


But the Oxford results would mean the country had already acquired substantial herd immunity through the unrecognised spread of Covid-19 over more than two months. If the findings are confirmed by testing, then the current restrictions could be removed much sooner than ministers have indicated.

Although some experts have shed doubt on the strength and length of the human immune response to the virus, Prof Gupta said the emerging evidence made her confident that humanity would build up herd immunity against Covid-19.

To provide the necessary evidence, the Oxford group is working with colleagues at the Universities of Cambridge and Kent to start antibody testing on the general population as soon as possible, using specialised “neutralisation assays which provide reliable readout of protective immunity,” Prof Gupta said. They hope to start testing later this week and obtain preliminary results within a few days.

 

[Seagull27]

As much as I'd love this to be true, I can't see it. It would be a massive coincidence otherwise that the first few sick patients we discovered were all ones who had been to Italy or other infected countries, or been in contact with those who had.

 

[The Camel]

As much as I'd love this to be true, I can't see it. It would be a massive coincidence otherwise that the first few sick patients we discovered were all ones who had been to Italy or other infected countries, or been in contact with those who had.

The fact it's in the Financial Times gives me hope.

You'd think if any newspaper fact checked their stories it would be the FT!

 

[Triggaaar]

New study suggests upto 50% of the population might have already suffered CV and not got ill.

Nah, I can't see that (hoping to be wrong).

The test for antibodies will be the game changer. Within 100 tests we'll know if we've got herd immunity already.

I'd like a much larger sample than 100 please, but the test will certainly be a great help.

Going back to the 50% claim, and the more I think about it the more annoyed I'm getting by what is quite clearly complete bullsh*t. So they're saying that perhaps half our population has had it, with under 500 deaths. So we could let everyone get it, and have about 1,000 deaths. So why is it that countries like Italy, Spain and France have have already had many times as many deaths? Why is it that China, where the virus should obviously have spread more (their lockdown would have come too late if the UK already had 50% infected), has only had 3,277 deaths, despite being more than 20 times as populated as the European countries I've mentioned? It's just BS.

Oh, and as a further point:
I contacted someone I know from Milan to see if she and her family were ok. She told me that both her, her brother and parents all believe they've had the virus (advised by their doctor). 3 of them had a high fever, with dry cough, and respiration problems. She didn't have a fever, but lost her sense of smell for 2 weeks. Here in the UK I know of very few people who have had symptoms. There's no way that half of us have had it, and had no symptoms at all.

 

[Triggaaar]

I don't get annoyed easily, but this is annoying me now.

Oxford University - quite a decent reputation. And a professor of theoretical epidemiology, along with her team, have come out with this. It's ****ing nonsense!

In Wuhan, where the virus started, and a lot of people were infected, hospitals were flooded with thousands of sick people. The hospitals couldn't cope with the numbers, and it's believed there was a relatively high fatality rate. Elsewhere in China, the case load has been much lower, and the fatality rate appears to be much lower.

Here in the UK, half of have got it/had it, but most of us didn't even cough once, because we've got balls of steel. We're clearly the master race.

 

[beorhthelm]

Going back to the 50% claim, and the more I think about it the more annoyed I'm getting by what is quite clearly complete bullsh*t. So they're saying that perhaps half our population has had it, with under 500 deaths. So we could let everyone get it, and have about 1,000 deaths. So why is it that countries like Italy, Spain and France have have already had many times as many deaths? Why is it that China, where the virus should obviously have spread more (their lockdown would have come too late if the UK already had 50% infected), has only had 3,277 deaths, despite being more than 20 times as populated as the European countries I've mentioned? It's just BS.

there's a flip side to this, how it came out of Wuhan. they locked down on 23 Jan, with stronger rules than we even have now. we had cases popping up across Europe the following week. given the incubation period there was probably a large infected group already out of that region. implication it was already more widely dispersed in China by then.

i also recall the two strain theory from a while ago, that proposed the stronger was what hit China with much lower virulence, while the weaker one has spread more rapidly. this could explain the higher number of serious case and deaths in Italy (apparently they have chinese engineers in factories there, giving a direct link to the region)

 

[The Camel]

I don't get annoyed easily, but this is annoying me now.

Oxford University - quite a decent reputation. And a professor of theoretical epidemiology, along with her team, have come out with this. It's ****ing nonsense!

In Wuhan, where the virus started, and a lot of people were infected, hospitals were flooded with thousands of sick people. The hospitals couldn't cope with the numbers, and it's believed there was a relatively high fatality rate. Elsewhere in China, the case load has been much lower, and the fatality rate appears to be much lower.

Here in the UK, half of have got it/had it, but most of us didn't even cough once, because we've got balls of steel. We're clearly the master race.

Is it possible that virtually everyone in Wuhan has had the virus now?

And because they have a lot of heavy smokers, the death rate was higher than average?

The real problem is, science knows so little about the virus. Everyone is guessing (including experts) and that's why is so ****ing frightening!

 

[CheeseRolls]

I don't get annoyed easily, but this is annoying me now.

Oxford University - quite a decent reputation. And a professor of theoretical epidemiology, along with her team, have come out with this. It's ****ing nonsense!

In Wuhan, where the virus started, and a lot of people were infected, hospitals were flooded with thousands of sick people. The hospitals couldn't cope with the numbers, and it's believed there was a relatively high fatality rate. Elsewhere in China, the case load has been much lower, and the fatality rate appears to be much lower.

Here in the UK, half of have got it/had it, but most of us didn't even cough once, because we've got balls of steel. We're clearly the master race.

Links below to the draft paper if you are interested.

https://twitter.com/EEID_oxford/status/1242402762283012096
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf?dl=0

 

[Triggaaar]

i also recall the two strain theory from a while ago, that proposed the stronger was what hit China with much lower virulence, while the weaker one has spread more rapidly. this could explain the higher number of serious case and deaths in Italy (apparently they have chinese engineers in factories there, giving a direct link to the region)

A lot of the cases in the UK came from Italy. But a fair number will have also come from China. If there are two strains, I imagine both a circulating here.

 

[CheeseRolls]

there's a flip side to this, how it came out of Wuhan. they locked down on 23 Jan, with stronger rules than we even have now. we had cases popping up across Europe the following week. given the incubation period there was probably a large infected group already out of that region. implication it was already more widely dispersed in China by then.

i also recall the two strain theory from a while ago, that proposed the stronger was what hit China with much lower virulence, while the weaker one has spread more rapidly. this could explain the higher number of serious case and deaths in Italy (apparently they have chinese engineers in factories there, giving a direct link to the region)

Following this logic through football. 12th March Liverpool hosted Athletico Madrid. 3,000 travelling fans from the Spanish infection epicentre, would you not expect to see an infection hotspot around Liverpool? It doesn't appear to be having an impact yet?

Not a challenge for you to explain, just something I thought we might see, that thus far has not had an impact.

 

[Triggaaar]

Is it possible that virtually everyone in Wuhan has had the virus now?

I guess.

And because they have a lot of heavy smokers, the death rate was higher than average?

It's possible they had a high rate of smokers, and also possible that the population was affected by the air pollution there, but both of these possibilities would also affect the rest of China. It's not like the Chinese only smoke in Wuhan.

The real problem is, science knows so little about the virus. Everyone is guessing (including experts) and that's why is so ****ing frightening!

While there is still a lot that isn't known about the virus, I'm sure there's a fair amount that is known. And this 50% idea seems to me to ignore all common sense and logic (still hoping to be wrong).

 

[Triggaaar]

Links below to the draft paper if you are interested.

...
https://www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model (13).pdf?dl=0

Their conclusion is a direct result of their assumptions. I wonder if they cross checked their conclusion at all, because it doesn't appear to stand up to any critique.

Does anyone here think they're onto something, or does everyone think it's a load of crap?

 

[Beach Hut]

Their conclusion is a direct result of their assumptions. I wonder if they cross checked their conclusion at all, because it doesn't appear to stand up to any critique.

Does anyone here think they're onto something, or does everyone think it's a load of crap?

In the nay camp, it really seems to good to be true

 

[CheeseRolls]

I don't get annoyed easily, but this is annoying me now.

Oxford University - quite a decent reputation. And a professor of theoretical epidemiology, along with her team, have come out with this. It's ****ing nonsense!

In Wuhan, where the virus started, and a lot of people were infected, hospitals were flooded with thousands of sick people. The hospitals couldn't cope with the numbers, and it's believed there was a relatively high fatality rate. Elsewhere in China, the case load has been much lower, and the fatality rate appears to be much lower.

Here in the UK, half of have got it/had it, but most of us didn't even cough once, because we've got balls of steel. We're clearly the master race.

Skimming through the paper from the Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford. I suspect that the maths is sound the data less so. I always tend to give the mathmeticians the benefit of the doubt, as I am truely out of my depth on anything other than mental arithmatic.

If the UK was a petri dish, this would make sense. However to extrapolate from the first death and use Italy as a control set, ignores the likely scenario, that nearly all early identified infections, were imported.

I am not sure I can explain this very well. The numbers are based on a theoretical model of the numbers of people who have recovered. If you take people coming into the UK and Italy between Dec 19 and Feb 20, who have been exposed to CV19. If they have recovered with no symptoms, they can not infect the unexposed population. Therefore only infected and infectious individuals are significant. Numbers extrapolated for recovered no symptons, are likely to be more applicable to where the infections originated (Wuhan) and even then they are not likely to be statistically significant.

I think if you were to run this model again in a few months time with a starting point, where CV19 is definetly established in the local population, the ouputs would start to make more sense.

 

[Triggaaar]

Skimming through the paper from the Professor of Theoretical Epidemiology at the University of Oxford. I suspect that the maths is sound the data less so. I always tend to give the mathmeticians the benefit of the doubt, as I am truely out of my depth on anything other than mental arithmatic.

If the UK was a petri dish, this would make sense. However to extrapolate from the first death and use Italy as a control set, ignores the likely scenario, that nearly all early identified infections, were imported.

I am not sure I can explain this very well. The numbers are based on a theoretical model of the numbers of people who have recovered. If you take people coming into the UK and Italy between Dec 19 and Feb 20, who have been exposed to CV19. If they have recovered with no symptoms, they can not infect the unexposed population. Therefore only infected and infectious individuals are significant. Numbers extrapolated for recovered no symptons, are likely to be more applicable to where the infections originated (Wuhan) and even then they are not likely to be statistically significant.

I think if you were to run this model again in a few months time with a starting point, where CV19 is definetly established in the local population, the ouputs would start to make more sense.

They have assumed that the patients hospitalised represent a very small fraction of the patients who contracted the virus. IMO the final conclusion makes a mockery of the terms 'University' and 'Professor'. I find it an insult to intelligence.

I continue to sincerely hope I'm wrong.

 

[Nixonator]

Their conclusion is a direct result of their assumptions. I wonder if they cross checked their conclusion at all, because it doesn't appear to stand up to any critique.

Does anyone here think they're onto something, or does everyone think it's a load of crap?

Seems highly unlikely, though of course I would love it to be true.

 

[Bakero]

[MENTION=4019]Triggaaar[/MENTION] Isn't there a small part of you that thinks the scientists might know more than you? It's good to have a critical eye but take a step back. I'm guessing the guys at Cambridge and Kent unis who are to start working with the Oxford bods this week don't think it's "a load of crap".