Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

[Arborbridge]

Article in Science on Manaus and herd immunity. Paraphrased as "What would happen if we just let the virus go & lifted all restrictions & had a largely uncontrolled COVID-19 epidemic? Mass death."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 30/tab-pdf

"Mass" death sounds terrible but what I have been reading for a few months now is that the death rate per 1,000 people who contract the virus is about 3.

So if all 65 million people in the UK caught the virus we would have 200,000 or so deaths. A large number for sure. But we are already at 100,000 anyway.

So I think "mass" there is a bit emotive. 64,800,000 Brits would survive.

According to wikipedia, in the UK there have been 3.26 million "cases" and 86,015 deaths. So if there were 65 million cases? That should result in much more than 200,000 deaths.

I believe herd immunity was "de-emphasised"when it was realised early on that deaths would be of the order of 4-500,000 and politicians realised they couldn't really sell that idea.

Arb.

[redsturgeon]

"Mass" death sounds terrible but what I have been reading for a few months now is that the death rate per 1,000 people who contract the virus is about 3.

Where did you read that. The ranges that are being considered range from around that figure to above 10 per thousand (more commonly 0.2->1.0%) but they are disputed on all sides

At 1% we are looking at 650,000 deaths, not a pleasant prospect. And such a death rate would certainly of overloaded the health services so you can take that as a lower estimate.

John

[dealtn]

Article in Science on Manaus and herd immunity. Paraphrased as "What would happen if we just let the virus go & lifted all restrictions & had a largely uncontrolled COVID-19 epidemic? Mass death."

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 30/tab-pdf

"Mass" death sounds terrible but what I have been reading for a few months now is that the death rate per 1,000 people who contract the virus is about 3.

So if all 65 million people in the UK caught the virus we would have 200,000 or so deaths. A large number for sure. But we are already at 100,000 anyway.

So I think "mass" there is a bit emotive. 64,800,000 Brits would survive.

According to wikipedia, in the UK there have been 3.26 million "cases" and 86,015 deaths. So if there were 65 million cases? That should result in much more than 200,000 deaths.

I believe herd immunity was "de-emphasised"when it was realised early on that deaths would be of the order of 4-500,000 and politicians realised they couldn't really sell that idea.

Arb.

Two major problmes with that calculation.

Firstly it assumes 100% susceptibility.

Even discounting that (if you believe it is and must be 100%) what is measureable for certain is deaths. Some of those deaths may or may not be Covid deaths, but let's assume the number of Covid deaths not captured balances out the number of non-Covid deaths captured. That is the errors cancel.

Cases however can only be a reported, or confirmed, number. There will be many (perhaps millions) of undetected cases. We are all familiar with asymptomatic carriers. There will be (perhaps millions) of those in the UK that have "had it", and not died from it, and quite probably not able to get it again (at least for many months) that aren't included in that 3.26 million.

You simply can't say 3.26 million of the UK produced 86,015 and then scale up by the 60/3.26 to get a number for "what if everyone in the UK got it" type of calculation.

[Bouleversee]

I know2 18/19 yr olds who had it twice within around 4 months, once at home and once shortly after they got to university, with the same fairly mild symptoms on each occasion. One of them had the first infection at the same time as his parents who had worse and more recognisable symptoms inc. anosmia. Nobody was tested first time but at Uni both tested positive.

[BigB]

Isn't there a question about the vaccines not stopping people still being transmitters of the virus, so there is not yet any data to support vaccinated people being able to mix?

I wasn't suggesting that vaccinated people should be able to mix generally, just with other people who have been vaccinated, on the basis that the likelihood of them passing it to each other is very small, and outweighed by the social and other benefits that would accrue.

Agree about the possible benefits, I was just noting that if the question on vaccine(s) and there being no recorded impact on transmission remains, then mixing with other vaccinees theoretically opens other trails of transmission. On this subject they are still guarded, possibly gathering data as we go. Presumably, vaccinees are still requested to report symptoms and do tests (and possibly isolate?) if they experience symptoms.

[tjh290633]

I suppose those antibody tests mentioned by TJH will be to see whether they can spin it out a bit longer.

No, Lorna, they are trying to find out how many might have already been infected, possibly without knowing it.

TJH

[Arborbridge]

"Mass" death sounds terrible but what I have been reading for a few months now is that the death rate per 1,000 people who contract the virus is about 3.

So if all 65 million people in the UK caught the virus we would have 200,000 or so deaths. A large number for sure. But we are already at 100,000 anyway.

So I think "mass" there is a bit emotive. 64,800,000 Brits would survive.

According to wikipedia, in the UK there have been 3.26 million "cases" and 86,015 deaths. So if there were 65 million cases? That should result in much more than 200,000 deaths.

I believe herd immunity was "de-emphasised"when it was realised early on that deaths would be of the order of 4-500,000 and politicians realised they couldn't really sell that idea.

Arb.

Two major problmes with that calculation.

Firstly it assumes 100% susceptibility.

Even discounting that (if you believe it is and must be 100%) what is measureable for certain is deaths. Some of those deaths may or may not be Covid deaths, but let's assume the number of Covid deaths not captured balances out the number of non-Covid deaths captured. That is the errors cancel.

Cases however can only be a reported, or confirmed, number. There will be many (perhaps millions) of undetected cases. We are all familiar with asymptomatic carriers. There will be (perhaps millions) of those in the UK that have "had it", and not died from it, and quite probably not able to get it again (at least for many months) that aren't included in that 3.26 million.

You simply can't say 3.26 million of the UK produced 86,015 and then scale up by the 60/3.26 to get a number for "what if everyone in the UK got it" type of calculation.

OK, I see that, but where does the 3 cases in a 1000 come from?

[Bouleversee]

I suppose those antibody tests mentioned by TJH will be to see whether they can spin it out a bit longer.

No, Lorna, they are trying to find out how many might have already been infected, possibly without knowing it.

TJH

Ah, so you are having it before the jab. I can't understand why they haven't done that with everyone, at least at the beginning of the roll-out. I would love to have had such a test myself as I picked up a virus when I saw my new consultant last January and now have a lot of the after effects that Long Covid sufferers do and it would be nice to know what it was. However, I presume that by now the antibodies of whatever would have faded away so no point in my case. At the time, I wasn't aware Covid-19 had entered the UK so just suffered in silence and didn't report it to anyone.

Won't they also want to test you at intervals afterwards to see how long whatever antibodies you get from the vaccine lasts? Or don't you get any? (My memory and brainfog again.) Perhaps they'll pick different candidates for that sort of test. They need to find out how long the vaccine works or we'll be masked for the rest of our lives.

[Lootman]

According to wikipedia, in the UK there have been 3.26 million "cases" and 86,015 deaths. So if there were 65 million cases? That should result in much more than 200,000 deaths.
I believe herd immunity was "de-emphasised"when it was realised early on that deaths would be of the order of 4-500,000 and politicians realised they couldn't really sell that idea.

Two major problmes with that calculation.

Firstly it assumes 100% susceptibility.

Even discounting that (if you believe it is and must be 100%) what is measureable for certain is deaths. Some of those deaths may or may not be Covid deaths, but let's assume the number of Covid deaths not captured balances out the number of non-Covid deaths captured. That is the errors cancel.

Cases however can only be a reported, or confirmed, number. There will be many (perhaps millions) of undetected cases. We are all familiar with asymptomatic carriers. There will be (perhaps millions) of those in the UK that have "had it", and not died from it, and quite probably not able to get it again (at least for many months) that aren't included in that 3.26 million.

You simply can't say 3.26 million of the UK produced 86,015 and then scale up by the 60/3.26 to get a number for "what if everyone in the UK got it" type of calculation.

OK, I see that, but where does the 3 cases in a 1000 come from?

I cited that 3/1,000 number originally. I first saw the 0.3 of a percent number several months ago and have seen it regularly since then. Obviously it is only an estimate since there is no way of knowing how many cases there have been, nor of how many people are not susceptible in the first place. What we do know is that the number infected is far higher than those who have tested positive, and the higher the number of actual cases then the lower the death rate since we do know the number of deaths.

Do you have another number with better evidence? One suggestion was between 2 and 10 in 1,000. But even the very top of that range still means 99% of us surviving. Moreover given that it is mostly the old or sick who die, in terms of person-years lost it is much less than 1%.

[Arborbridge]

Do you have another number with better evidence? One suggestion was between 2 and 10 in 1,000. But even the very top of that range still means 99% of us surviving. Moreover given that it is mostly the old or sick who die, in terms of person-years lost it is much less than 1%.

Do you have another number with better evidence?

No, that's why I was curious. The number of deaths is trivial and is hardly going to halt the crazy rise in the human race (but not to those families) . Has the acturaial industry made any alterations to mortality tables? They hadn't last time I knew about it, so the effect of excess deaths isn't so great yet.

But really, as ever, it's a political question about what a government can be seen to be accepting, rather than "the science"

[88V8]

So, at last we've sort of closed our borders. Someone in Govt noticed that we're an island.
Only ten months late.
Still, better late than never.

V8

[Mike4]

So, at last we've sort of closed our borders. Someone in Govt noticed that we're an island.
Only ten months late.
Still, better late than never.

V8

Stunning isn't it. I wonder what changed between yesterday and today to make the government wake up.

It's actually quite worrying given how implacably opposed they have been to closing borders until today.

[Bouleversee]

I'll believe it when I see it . Matthew Parris came back fom somewhere which required isolation at this end but nobody asked him for the requisite form he had completed or details of where he was planning to isolate. Talking the talk is easy, walking the walk is harder.

[Lootman]

So, at last we've sort of closed our borders. Someone in Govt noticed that we're an island.
Only ten months late. Still, better late than never.

Stunning isn't it. I wonder what changed between yesterday and today to make the government wake up.

It's actually quite worrying given how implacably opposed they have been to closing borders until today.

It is only because of the new variants of the virus. Until very recently we were a net exporter of the virus.

Closing borders is the ultimate indicator that you will sacrifice not just the economy, but freedom itself. It should be the last resort and not the first.

I'll believe it when I see it . Matthew Parris came back fom somewhere which required isolation at this end but nobody asked him for the requisite form he had completed or details of where he was planning to isolate. Talking the talk is easy, walking the walk is harder.

The problem is that you cannot introduce 100% checks at airports because of the long queues and delays that would cause. So they only spot check.

They spot check that you have completed the form which details where you will quarantine. If you do not complete that form and are not spot-checked then effectively you can arrive with impunity. I have arrived at Heathrow twice in the last 6 months and neither time was I checked for the form, although I had in fact completed it both times. Nor was there any check that I was isolating where I said I would do.

Short of a police state there isn't much the government can do.

[Mike4]

So, at last we've sort of closed our borders. Someone in Govt noticed that we're an island.
Only ten months late. Still, better late than never.

Stunning isn't it. I wonder what changed between yesterday and today to make the government wake up.

It's actually quite worrying given how implacably opposed they have been to closing borders until today.

It is only because of the new variants of the virus. Until very recently we were a net exporter of the virus.

Closing borders is the ultimate indicator that you will sacrifice not just the economy, but freedom itself. It should be the last resort and not the first.

I'll believe it when I see it . Matthew Parris came back fom somewhere which required isolation at this end but nobody asked him for the requisite form he had completed or details of where he was planning to isolate. Talking the talk is easy, walking the walk is harder.

The problem is that you cannot introduce 100% checks at airports because of the long queues and delays that would cause. So they only spot check.

They spot check that you have completed the form which details where you will quarantine. If you do not complete that form and are not spot-checked then effectively you can arrive with impunity. I have arrived at Heathrow twice in the last 6 months and neither time was I checked for the form, although I had in fact completed it both times. Nor was there any check that I was isolating where I said I would do.

Short of a police state there isn't much the government can do.

Australia and New Zealand managed it without being police states.

[Lootman]

Stunning isn't it. I wonder what changed between yesterday and today to make the government wake up.

It's actually quite worrying given how implacably opposed they have been to closing borders until today.

It is only because of the new variants of the virus. Until very recently we were a net exporter of the virus.

Closing borders is the ultimate indicator that you will sacrifice not just the economy, but freedom itself. It should be the last resort and not the first.

I'll believe it when I see it . Matthew Parris came back fom somewhere which required isolation at this end but nobody asked him for the requisite form he had completed or details of where he was planning to isolate. Talking the talk is easy, walking the walk is harder.

The problem is that you cannot introduce 100% checks at airports because of the long queues and delays that would cause. So they only spot check.

They spot check that you have completed the form which details where you will quarantine. If you do not complete that form and are not spot-checked then effectively you can arrive with impunity. I have arrived at Heathrow twice in the last 6 months and neither time was I checked for the form, although I had in fact completed it both times. Nor was there any check that I was isolating where I said I would do.

Short of a police state there isn't much the government can do.

Australia and New Zealand managed it without being police states.

As far as I am concerned not allowing people to leave a country is tantamount to a police state.

But in any event those countries were simply lucky in that they are very remote, less populous and the percentage of that population leaving or entering the country on any given day is trivial. In the UK every day typically 100,000 people enter or leave at Heathrow alone, and messing with the plans of a lot of people, including me.

It might of worked a year ago. Now it is just wanting to be seen as doing something.

[Mike4]

It might of worked a year ago. Now it is just wanting to be seen as doing something.

It WOULD have worked a year ago, but not now so why have they done it now and not a year ago? The threat was just as obvious in Jan 2020 and SO much economic damage could have been saved.

And BTW no-one is stopping anyone leaving a country. It is entering the country that is being regulated.

[swill453]

Until very recently we were a net exporter of the virus.

What? Where's your evidence of us being so, and then somehow "flipping"?

Scott.

[Lootman]

It might of worked a year ago. Now it is just wanting to be seen as doing something.

It WOULD have worked a year ago, but not now so why have they done it now and not a year ago? The threat was just as obvious in Jan 2020 and SO much economic damage could have been saved.

And BTW no-one is stopping anyone leaving a country. It is entering the country that is being regulated.

Sure but hindsight is always 20/20.

I do not have a problem with voluntary self-isolation upon arriving although I do think that treating UK citizens and residents the same as foreign nationals is a bit wide of the mark. Think about it: You are British and Britain won't let you in, leaving you stranded in a country that also doesn't want you!

[Bouleversee]

It might of worked a year ago. Now it is just wanting to be seen as doing something.

It WOULD have worked a year ago, but not now so why have they done it now and not a year ago? The threat was just as obvious in Jan 2020 and SO much economic damage could have been saved.

And BTW no-one is stopping anyone leaving a country. It is entering the country that is being regulated.

Sure but hindsight is always 20/20.

I do not have a problem with voluntary self-isolation upon arriving although I do think that treating UK citizens and residents the same as foreign nationals is a bit wide of the mark. Think about it: You are British and Britain won't let you in, leaving you stranded in a country that also doesn't want you!

The answer to that is pretty obvious.