Which is because of the incubation period, no? So all of those people who were out in pubs last Friday night will likely only start showing symptoms over the next few days, and those that will need hospitalising are still a week or so away from that. We won't see a slow down for at least another week or two, as these measures will have about a 2 week lag in terms of the number of people who get seriously ill.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Fascinating Story in the FT
- Thread starter The Camel
- Start date
Which is because of the incubation period, no? So all of those people who were out in pubs last Friday night will likely only start showing symptoms over the next few days, and those that will need hospitalising are still a week or so away from that. We won't see a slow down for at least another week or two, as these measures will have about a 2 week lag in terms of the number of people who get seriously ill.
No one will know until the antibody test is widely available. This reads to me like a medic with an interest in it and a media group with an interest in the economy both pushing for that test asap.
They may have vested interests but it's no bad thing surely? I'd like to see NHS workers and volunteers targeted first with the test.
They may have vested interests but it's no bad thing surely? I'd like to see NHS workers and volunteers targeted first with the test.
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,359
Even when Italy was initially put into lockdown, there were dozens of flights arriving into the UK from there on a daily basis, with little or no checking done on the health or otherwise of people arriving on those flights. So wouldn't be surprised in the least if the numbers of those who have already been infected through transmission turns out to be far higher than previously thought
I get that but it's not my point.
If the disease was here in January why wasn't it rampant? I was travelling to North West London for work (a hotspot), went to a kids' dance show in the Dome at the start of March and the Palace game etc.
I think I was agreeing with the sceptical points raised here, including by you. Even with the incubation period you would have expected a greater level of cases at the end of Feb latest if the FT is correct. It seems more likely that February half term trips to Italy and Spain are what kick started our cases. But, as I posted above, no one will know until the test comes in, so if they are pushing for it via a bullish report, good luck to them,
We need to adhere to the current restrictions until we know better but the amount of asymptomatic carriers is the big unknown until the antibody test becomes widely available.
I have no evidence to back it but have always had a suspicion it was over here before we knew about it as a lot of people (me included) seemed to have what we now know as the early symptoms but then recovered.
I have no evidence to back it but have always had a suspicion it was over here before we knew about it as a lot of people (me included) seemed to have what we now know as the early symptoms but then recovered.
Si Gull
Way Down South
When all of this is over and the response to it is reviewed the failure to isolate and test those coming back from Italy, France, etc will be a major feature. A real opportunity to halt the spread was missed and I don't know why, it seemed such an obvious thing to do.
Perhaps it was rampant? Remember that article (Daily Mail I know...) suggesting flu cases around December and January were EIGHT times higher than normal?
We may end up retrospectively thinking some/a lot of “flu” deaths in Jan/Feb etc were actually CV. Perhaps?
Ah yes sorry, I misread your original post. I think we're roughly making the same point!
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,025
i had an "odd" cold mid Feb, came on fast with day off then fine, odd because it was "dry" without gunge. was that a mild wuflu? antibody tests cant come too soon to understand the true rate of infection.
Mr Banana
Tedious chump
Just had a chance to have a (brief) look at the paper.
I might be missing something (not least because I'm a dim bulb), but it seems flawed to me.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the conclusion that 50% have been infected seems to depend on a miniscule proportion of the population being classed as 'vulnerable' (less than 1%). That can't be right - about 15% of the population is over 70.
Not saying it's wrong but it seems unlikely. Also seems to be giving people what they want to hear, to an extent, because a lot of us anecdotally know of probable cases since the start of the year.
I might be missing something (not least because I'm a dim bulb), but it seems flawed to me.
Unless I'm reading it wrong, the conclusion that 50% have been infected seems to depend on a miniscule proportion of the population being classed as 'vulnerable' (less than 1%). That can't be right - about 15% of the population is over 70.
Not saying it's wrong but it seems unlikely. Also seems to be giving people what they want to hear, to an extent, because a lot of us anecdotally know of probable cases since the start of the year.
1. True. Not pedantic, just correct
2. I fully agree. Not enough journalists with a scientific background. One particular pet peeve of mine is when they make comparisons using numbers, ratios and percentages. "Over 2000 students wore blue, whereas just 5% were in red. An additional 2/5 dressed I black". Like it's written to deliberately obfuscate.
Machiavelli
Well-known member
While scientific, and particularly medical, funding often raises concerns, I'd seriously doubt this is a vested interest story. It's just speculative. Especially at the early stages with widespread pheonomena, the dominant understanding of science is that theories need to be tested against the evidence, and this scenario hasn't even been tested. Inevitably it's not been well reported, and it's also been misread. Even in that FT article, the whole scenario is based on an 'if'.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,025
over 70's are not a more risk because of age per se, its because they are much more likely to have other conditions.
Yes, sometimes it is deliberate. There was an article relatively recently moaning that female authors struggle as men ignore their books - with a 'unfair sexism' slant to it all. The headline stats they used were that nearly all men (90% of those asked) mainly read books written by other men.
Much much further down in the article (where some readers won't have got to) was a sentence that said 45 out of 50 women asked said that they mainly read books by women!
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,689
Is that correct?
I thought I had read something that older people are more susceptible generally because of their older immune/physiological response to the virus itself?
Green Cross Code Man
Wunt be druv
Additionally, a doctor on five live last week stated to a 70 year old celebrity (can't remember who) who had stirred up a twitter storm as he was cross about being labelled in an at risk group. The chap went quiet as the doctor explained that no matter whether he was very healthy or not, lungs degenerate with age and that a 70 year old would potentially be more at risk due to this.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,025
older generally yes, there isnt a switch on your health at 69 y, 364 days. was only making refernce to the general percentages.
Deportivo Seagull
I should coco
The author is a professor of theoretical epidemiology which means things like this will be her bread and better. As with everyone else on here I do not have access to the dataset. However, she has a reputation that she will not want to destroy so I think it safe to assume that the dataset used will be as up to date and accurate as feasibly possible.
At the end of the day this is a model and so will change as the dataset is updated. Key word here is theoretical.
The Chinese only really admitted to the flu in January though it now transpires it was around in November.
In the uk we were only looking for the flu in late January so any other cases prior to this would have been attributed to seasonal flu only.
It appears to be very contagious as all members of society appear to be getting it.
The problem is that we only test on serious cases so we have absolutely no idea how many people have had it.
Bottom line is the author is not going to put a her reputation on the line with a bit of a guess ... it states that she will not publish because clearly more data is needed but for her to even come out with it is telling.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
At the end of the day this is a model and so will change as the dataset is updated. Key word here is theoretical.
The Chinese only really admitted to the flu in January though it now transpires it was around in November.
In the uk we were only looking for the flu in late January so any other cases prior to this would have been attributed to seasonal flu only.
It appears to be very contagious as all members of society appear to be getting it.
The problem is that we only test on serious cases so we have absolutely no idea how many people have had it.
Bottom line is the author is not going to put a her reputation on the line with a bit of a guess ... it states that she will not publish because clearly more data is needed but for her to even come out with it is telling.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
pb21
Well-known member
- Apr 23, 2010
- 6,689
This is what I find strange.
As you say this is her bread and butter, but this is also the bread and butter of presumably quite a lot of other people. In addition it looks like quite a simple model, at least to interrogate and question / agree with? If so this should very quickly be held as much of a viable outcome as the Imperial College study?