"Edward Argar, the health minister, said on Thursday no tests had been purchased by the UK as the government was still in discussions with Roche about acquiring them."
I know the UK government got burned by the dodgy Chinese kits and those companies demanding money upfront, but Roche are legit well known and respected outfit. Also, you would have thought they could have placed ordered, conditional on what Roche said being true.
Blimey. So not only did we take a week longer to approve the test than did others, we haven't bothered to order any in advance.
In the broadest sense, this government does not seem to value timely intelligence. Which is enormously unintelligent of them.
I wouldn't criticise the government over length taken to validate. I think given previous experiences, getting it right seems very sensible.
Just because some other European countries or US have said OK, the US for instance also said OK to some rapid tests that don't do what they claim and a number of other European countries have got burned by not properly checking despite giving them the green light.
In terms of validation, I think the UK approach has been very sensible. Without proper checks and balances on those antibody tests they bought initially, we probably would now be talking about a massive scandal of false test results.
Not doing a deal in the meantime, now that seems dumb.
A number of PB.com commenters have welcomed the UKG's decision to decline the invitation to participate in the EU procurement schemes for CV related supplies and have ridiculed those schemes as not 'producing' or 'delivering' anything.
The day of approval of the Elecsys tests was May 4th in Germany, The same day saw German SoH Jens Spahn attend the opening of the only production line in Penzberg/Bavaria.
I posted a comment pointing out this fact on the following day. The worldwide demand for this test (and the COBA machines required to evaluate the samples) outstrips the supply by some measure. Fervent PC.com Brexiteers will probably still defend UKG's decision for some reasons.
Is the EU scheme connected to the production line in question?
The EU scheme covers the procurement of these tests. The production line in question ist the only one in existence, worldwide.
French citizens will be able to go holidays in France by July and August, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said, announcing an €18bn (£15.9m) rescue package for the country's tourism industry.
Doesn't sound like they are going to go with the EU vision of all EU citizens being able to go anywhere for their holibobs.
Do you have any idea of the extent of the nausea inspired in all right thinking people by that expression? Does anything prevent you from writing "holidays"?
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.
I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.
Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.
Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
But probably better to wait for the official figures.
Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.
Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
People, like me, think that a lot in Sweden have had it, without supper large numbers dying is because it has been transmitting amongst the young and healthy, who are very unlikely to get that ill or die, while the old and ill shelter as best they can. instead of the close schools/everybody shelter approach elsewhere.
and thees large is numbers 26% for Stockholm are the numbers coming from people working form the Swedish government, who presumably have the most data from Sweden.
"Edward Argar, the health minister, said on Thursday no tests had been purchased by the UK as the government was still in discussions with Roche about acquiring them."
I know the UK government got burned by the dodgy Chinese kits and those companies demanding money upfront, but Roche are legit well known and respected outfit. Also, you would have thought they could have placed ordered, conditional on what Roche said being true.
As far as I recall everyone on here who expressed an opinion didn't mind that we'd bought tests that didn't work - we were all glad that they'd tested them and had tried to get hold of them.
Time is at a premium now. It's worth risking some money for.
Who didn't mind that we bought tests that didn't work? I certainly did. Anyone who knows the first thing about medical devices and diagnostics knows that was another monumental piece of incompetence by the government, based on total stupidity and bad decision making. They might as well have bought snakeoil. They were well and truly conned.
Both sides are always quick to mash the old retweet button these days e.g. Boris 'people of colour' and the doctored This Morning video both got massively shared around the t'interwebs.
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.
I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.
In our age of equality many have struggled with the fact that the virus is deeply ageist. deeply sexist, deeply racist and very deeply disability and health condition intolerant.
Its the opposite of what we are trying to be in society.
Our attitudes have greatly hampered our ability to face the truth and respond accordingly. We would like to believe the virus affects all equally, but nothing could be further from the truth
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.
I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.
Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.
Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
But probably better to wait for the official figures.
Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.
Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
Because Mr Swedish Witty says so. He said in a recent interview, currently 20-25% of Stockholm, approaching 20% nationally shortly. He might be pulling figures out of his arse, but that is what he says.
That is based on mathematical modelling, I think. We've seen all kinds of claims based on mathematical modelling. But obviously the relative numbers of dead suggest otherwise.
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.
I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.
Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.
Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
But probably better to wait for the official figures.
Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.
Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
Because Mr Swedish Witty says so. He said in a recent interview, currently 20-25% of Stockholm, approaching 20% nationally shortly. He might be pulling figures out of his arse, but that is what he says.
That is based on mathematical modelling, I think. We've seen all kinds of claims based on mathematical modelling. But obviously the relative numbers of dead suggest otherwise.
As I say he might be wrong. Witty might be wrong saying 4% here. We will know more as these antibody tests are done, but for the moment when you say why do we think x....well because the people in charge with the best access to the data are saying on the record it is.
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.
I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.
Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.
Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
But probably better to wait for the official figures.
Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.
Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
People, like me, think that a lot in Sweden have had it, without supper large numbers dying is because it has been transmitting amongst the young and healthy, who are very unlikely to get that ill or die, while the old and ill shelter as best they can. instead of the close schools/everybody shelter approach elsewhere.
and thees large is numbers 26% for Stockholm are the numbers coming from people working form the Swedish government, who presumably have the most data from Sweden.
That is from modelling, though. Remember, there was a model from Oxford which was being presented (rather inaccurately) as evidence that we might have surpassed herd immunity in the UK weeks ago.
"Edward Argar, the health minister, said on Thursday no tests had been purchased by the UK as the government was still in discussions with Roche about acquiring them."
I know the UK government got burned by the dodgy Chinese kits and those companies demanding money upfront, but Roche are legit well known and respected outfit. Also, you would have thought they could have placed ordered, conditional on what Roche said being true.
As far as I recall everyone on here who expressed an opinion didn't mind that we'd bought tests that didn't work - we were all glad that they'd tested them and had tried to get hold of them.
Time is at a premium now. It's worth risking some money for.
Time has been at a premium since this whole thing started.
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.
I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.
Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.
Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
But probably better to wait for the official figures.
Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.
Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
Because Mr Swedish Witty says so. He said in a recent interview, currently 20-25% of Stockholm, approaching 20% nationally shortly. He might be pulling figures out of his arse, but that is what he says.
That is based on mathematical modelling, I think. We've seen all kinds of claims based on mathematical modelling. But obviously the relative numbers of dead suggest otherwise.
As I say he might be wrong. Witty might be wrong saying 4% here. We will know more as these antibody tests are done, but for the moment when you say why do we think x....well because the people in charge with the best access to the data are saying on the record it is.
Certainly it does help to know that the reason people think that is because of the results of mathematical modelling.
Obviously given the criticism of the Swedish approach the authorities do have a rather strong incentive to assure people that they are going to have herd immunity. Though how they will get it on the basis of 20% is still a mystery to me.
Those wondering about the ability for the UK to buy these Roche tests, I am fairly certain a Roche spokesman said a few days ago they didn't see any issue in terms of capacity being able to provide several 100k a week of them to the UK.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
If you want depressing...then read below....
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
Figures from Spain show only 5% overall with antibodies. In Alicante province it’s 2.7
There is something we don't understand about this virus -
It seems highly infectious, yet some people in persistent close proximity fail to catch it. Or at least get symptoms.
The immune/exposed number is all over the place - Sweden claiming 26% in Stockholm, and now the numbers above from Tuscany.
The fatality estimates, from reputable scientists, are all over the place.
I wonder if an issue is the capability of the antibody tests being used?
I think it is a reflection of Who has had the virus, more than how many,
Looking at numbers from Sweden and elsewhere, its possible that if a million people under 18 get it then maybe 5 or 6 will die, if just 1,000 over 80 get the virus then perhpase 300-350 die.
The 5 or 6 kids are sad, but would barley be noticed in the daily death announcement, but 1 million people would move the nation noticeably towards 'Hurd immunity' however: 350 over 80s would almost double the daily total, but the 1,000 makes no difference to Hurd immunity.
Keeping schools open relay is key, and is probably why Denmark and Finland have now copied Sweden in opening their schools.
It's not just about deaths, do possible long term survivors complications not worry you just a bit ?
Yes, all suffering consernes me.
I support the approach of Sweden, because it seems to be a level headed approach that will minimise total suffering in the long term, and is not contingent on 'and then we discover a vaccine and its all over' in the next couple of months. it maintains basic civil liberty/freedoms, and of less importance but not irreverent will not totally 'trash' the economy.
As for long term damage to survivors, yes that is also a concern, but does not change my conclusion. I would be very intested in numbers affected, and how badly.
From what I can see, in Sweden roughly 3,000 dead, 1,500 have been in ICU 500, now dead, 500, recovered and 500, still in ICU.
I would have thought that the 500 recovered from ICU are the most lickly to be badly affected, 500 is a 1/6th of the 3,000 dead, therefor my big concern is with the 3,000 dead. There will be some others as well, but hard to estimate how many.
It would be nice to think we had a ready-made alternative, but:
1 - Sweden's economy will be/is almost as much in the shitter from all of this as its neighbouring countries. It's probably dampened - slightly - the fall, but at the cost of ensuring the return back will be dampened as well. It's the virus and its effects that do the vast majority of the economic damage.
2 - The Swedish option is not on the cards for the UK - or England, anyway. Population densities and connectivity are far, far higher, so the same strategy would cause a big increase in deaths here. Looking at Sweden compared to its neighbouring countries (with similar population densities, connectivity, economic structure, and social and cultural traits) looks like it gives 4x to 8x as many deaths as a straightforward lockdown.
3 - There are indications (from the coronaviruses found in the common cold) that illness-recovery-fuelled immunity degrades quite quickly. If they do get immunity (which isn't proven, but I personally believe that indications are that you do get at least limited immunity from recovering), it might be effectively gone in 3-6 months.
Thanks Andy_cooke, and thaks for keeping this civil. I will try to anser.
0. To me civil liberty and freedom are important and in this case Sweden has come top of the class.
1. Sweden's economy will be badly effected, not least my the disruption to supply canes and markets overseas, but this would happen anyway, but there approach Vs Lock-down will I think of led to less government borrowing and less unemployment, how much will be hard to calculate even when all the numbers are known in a year or two, and even harder now, but that does not mean it will be trivial.
2. Population density will have an effect, especially on the speed of the transmition, but probably not as big effect on total deaths over a long period of time. Stockholm is also a big city of 2 million, so fairly comparable to other big city's. the rest of Scandinavian locked down very early in there outbreaks and that may be why there are so few deaths there at the moment compared to the rest of europ, but a lock-down may not be sustainable ......
3. We by definition do not know the long-term immunity that this virus will have, we can say with confidants that it does give very good short term immunity, which is not a guarantee but an indication that it will give at least some long term immunity. but agreed this is not known, but am perhaps more optimistic that you.
Anyway, relay hoping we get a good quality, large scale antibody test from Sweden soon.
If someone can come up with an antigen test that can work like a piece of litmus paper put into the mouth which immediately changes colour to show if you currently have the virus, that would be a killer blow to the virus. If we can instantly identify everyone infected, we can control it to the point of rapid extinction, and allow loads of social activities again dependent on all participants taking the test and passing it (or going off to self-isolate if they've got it).
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.
I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.
Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.
Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
But probably better to wait for the official figures.
Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.
Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
Because Mr Swedish Witty says so. He said in a recent interview, currently 20-25% of Stockholm, approaching 20% nationally shortly. He might be pulling figures out of his arse, but that is what he says.
That is based on mathematical modelling, I think. We've seen all kinds of claims based on mathematical modelling. But obviously the relative numbers of dead suggest otherwise.
As I say he might be wrong. Witty might be wrong saying 4% here. We will know more as these antibody tests are done, but for the moment when you say why do we think x....well because the people in charge with the best access to the data are saying on the record it is.
Certainly it does help to know that the reason people think that is because of the results of mathematical modelling.
Obviously given the criticism of the Swedish approach the authorities do have a rather strong incentive to assure people that they are going to have herd immunity. Though how they will get it on the basis of 20% is still a mystery to me.
The Swedish approach isn't based on getting herd immunity in one wave. It is that they think this virus will be about for years to come, without any vaccine or drugs that substantially improve mortality rates. Thus, their approach is one they believe they can continue indefinitely, with a level of the virus at a manageable level.
Also, a significant amount of their deaths (like here), are due to failures in care homes, which they admit they failed on and are now taking steps to improve by hiring many new staff.
That's a big call, if Oxford come through and there is a vaccine in the Autumn, well they have just killed a load of extra people. If like the WHO said yesterday, this might be something like AIDs that we have to live with forever, they might be found to have been correct.
Of course, it's fair to say that the R0 number is something that's quite hard to estimate, given the incompleteness of the data and the fact that as soon as people become aware of an outbreak they move heaven and earth to stop the spread.
Probably the denialists would do better to question the estimates of R0 rather than the fatality rate.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.
I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.
Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.
Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
But probably better to wait for the official figures.
Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.
Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
Because Mr Swedish Witty says so. He said in a recent interview, currently 20-25% of Stockholm, approaching 20% nationally shortly. He might be pulling figures out of his arse, but that is what he says.
That is based on mathematical modelling, I think. We've seen all kinds of claims based on mathematical modelling. But obviously the relative numbers of dead suggest otherwise.
As I say he might be wrong. Witty might be wrong saying 4% here. We will know more as these antibody tests are done, but for the moment when you say why do we think x....well because the people in charge with the best access to the data are saying on the record it is.
Certainly it does help to know that the reason people think that is because of the results of mathematical modelling.
Obviously given the criticism of the Swedish approach the authorities do have a rather strong incentive to assure people that they are going to have herd immunity. Though how they will get it on the basis of 20% is still a mystery to me.
The Swedish approach isn't based on getting herd immunity in one wave.
I agree that would be very foolish, and they deny they're trying to do that.
And yet Anders Tegnell (who I assume you're talking about) thought it was going to happen very soon in Stockholm, on the basis of "up to 25%" having been infected: "We could reach herd immunity in Stockholm within a matter of weeks."
THIS is what people are struggling with. Viral unfairness. If this virus had swept through Europe 50 years ago we would barely have heard of it, because far fewer people would have made it to the age where you get to die from it.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
First speeding ticket and first car fatality in the UK.......
THIS is what people are struggling with. Viral unfairness. If this virus had swept through Europe 50 years ago we would barely have heard of it, because far fewer people would have made it to the age where you get to die from it.
That is a very good point and something worth considering when we think about HK flu.
29% may already have had virus says Uni of Manchester researchers following analysis of Local Authority data.
"Extrapolation of these results showed that unreported community infection may be >200 times higher than reported cases, providing evidence that by the end of the second week in April, 29% of the population may already have had the disease and so have increased immunity"
I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
If you want depressing...then read below....
I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....
I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.
Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
Figures from Spain show only 5% overall with antibodies. In Alicante province it’s 2.7
There is something we don't understand about this virus -
It seems highly infectious, yet some people in persistent close proximity fail to catch it. Or at least get symptoms.
The immune/exposed number is all over the place - Sweden claiming 26% in Stockholm, and now the numbers above from Tuscany.
The fatality estimates, from reputable scientists, are all over the place.
I wonder if an issue is the capability of the antibody tests being used?
I think it is a reflection of Who has had the virus, more than how many,
Looking at numbers from Sweden and elsewhere, its possible that if a million people under 18 get it then maybe 5 or 6 will die, if just 1,000 over 80 get the virus then perhpase 300-350 die.
The 5 or 6 kids are sad, but would barley be noticed in the daily death announcement, but 1 million people would move the nation noticeably towards 'Hurd immunity' however: 350 over 80s would almost double the daily total, but the 1,000 makes no difference to Hurd immunity.
Keeping schools open relay is key, and is probably why Denmark and Finland have now copied Sweden in opening their schools.
It's not just about deaths, do possible long term survivors complications not worry you just a bit ?
Yes, all suffering consernes me.
I support the approach of Sweden, because it seems to be a level headed approach that will minimise total suffering in the long term, and is not contingent on 'and then we discover a vaccine and its all over' in the next couple of months. it maintains basic civil liberty/freedoms, and of less importance but not irreverent will not totally 'trash' the economy.
As for long term damage to survivors, yes that is also a concern, but does not change my conclusion. I would be very intested in numbers affected, and how badly.
From what I can see, in Sweden roughly 3,000 dead, 1,500 have been in ICU 500, now dead, 500, recovered and 500, still in ICU.
I would have thought that the 500 recovered from ICU are the most lickly to be badly affected, 500 is a 1/6th of the 3,000 dead, therefor my big concern is with the 3,000 dead. There will be some others as well, but hard to estimate how many.
It would be nice to think we had a ready-made alternative, but:
1 - Sweden's economy will be/is almost as much in the shitter from all of this as its neighbouring countries. It's probably dampened - slightly - the fall, but at the cost of ensuring the return back will be dampened as well. It's the virus and its effects that do the vast majority of the economic damage.
2 - The Swedish option is not on the cards for the UK - or England, anyway. Population densities and connectivity are far, far higher, so the same strategy would cause a big increase in deaths here. Looking at Sweden compared to its neighbouring countries (with similar population densities, connectivity, economic structure, and social and cultural traits) looks like it gives 4x to 8x as many deaths as a straightforward lockdown.
3 - There are indications (from the coronaviruses found in the common cold) that illness-recovery-fuelled immunity degrades quite quickly. If they do get immunity (which isn't proven, but I personally believe that indications are that you do get at least limited immunity from recovering), it might be effectively gone in 3-6 months.
Thanks Andy_cooke, and thaks for keeping this civil. I will try to anser.
0. To me civil liberty and freedom are important and in this case Sweden has come top of the class.
1. Sweden's economy will be badly effected, not least my the disruption to supply canes and markets overseas, but this would happen anyway, but there approach Vs Lock-down will I think of led to less government borrowing and less unemployment, how much will be hard to calculate even when all the numbers are known in a year or two, and even harder now, but that does not mean it will be trivial.
2. Population density will have an effect, especially on the speed of the transmition, but probably not as big effect on total deaths over a long period of time. Stockholm is also a big city of 2 million, so fairly comparable to other big city's. the rest of Scandinavian locked down very early in there outbreaks and that may be why there are so few deaths there at the moment compared to the rest of europ, but a lock-down may not be sustainable ......
3. We by definition do not know the long-term immunity that this virus will have, we can say with confidants that it does give very good short term immunity, which is not a guarantee but an indication that it will give at least some long term immunity. but agreed this is not known, but am perhaps more optimistic that you.
Anyway, relay hoping we get a good quality, large scale antibody test from Sweden soon.
If someone can come up with an antigen test that can work like a piece of litmus paper put into the mouth which immediately changes colour to show if you currently have the virus, that would be a killer blow to the virus. If we can instantly identify everyone infected, we can control it to the point of rapid extinction, and allow loads of social activities again dependent on all participants taking the test and passing it (or going off to self-isolate if they've got it).
I totally agree, and if somebody can come up with that, and/or a vaccine soon then the Swedish approach will look very foolish.
I relay hope that happens, as I am sure that everybody does. If it does I will post a very sincerer appolage on here.
Sadly I am doubtful that will happen, at least not in the near term.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
You could write an amusing date of birth harvesting thing on facebook that presented historical events scraped from Wikipedia on that basis.
I've still got a while until Neville Chamberlain is Prime Minister in my backwards timeline, but not as long as I'd like.
THIS is what people are struggling with. Viral unfairness. If this virus had swept through Europe 50 years ago we would barely have heard of it, because far fewer people would have made it to the age where you get to die from it.
That is a very good point and something worth considering when we think about HK flu.
Do we know for sure that it wouldn't have taken out the same % of the older people of their time?
France has said it would be "unacceptable" for French drug giant Sanofi to prioritise the US market if it develops a Covid-19 vaccine.
The government was reacting to remarks by Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson, who said "the US government has the right to the largest pre-order because it's invested in taking the risk".
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.
I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.
Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.
Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
But probably better to wait for the official figures.
Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.
Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
Because Mr Swedish Witty says so. He said in a recent interview, currently 20-25% of Stockholm, approaching 20% nationally shortly. He might be pulling figures out of his arse, but that is what he says.
That is based on mathematical modelling, I think. We've seen all kinds of claims based on mathematical modelling. But obviously the relative numbers of dead suggest otherwise.
As I say he might be wrong. Witty might be wrong saying 4% here. We will know more as these antibody tests are done, but for the moment when you say why do we think x....well because the people in charge with the best access to the data are saying on the record it is.
Certainly it does help to know that the reason people think that is because of the results of mathematical modelling.
Obviously given the criticism of the Swedish approach the authorities do have a rather strong incentive to assure people that they are going to have herd immunity. Though how they will get it on the basis of 20% is still a mystery to me.
The Swedish approach isn't based on getting herd immunity in one wave.
I agree that would be very foolish, and they deny they're trying to do that.
And yet Anders Tegnell (who I assume you're talking about) thought it was going to happen very soon in Stockholm, on the basis of "up to 25%" having been infected: "We could reach herd immunity in Stockholm within a matter of weeks."
'A recent survey from one of our hospitals in Stockholm found that 27% of staff there are immune. We think that most of those are immune from transmission in society, not the workplace.'
THIS is what people are struggling with. Viral unfairness. If this virus had swept through Europe 50 years ago we would barely have heard of it, because far fewer people would have made it to the age where you get to die from it.
That is a very good point and something worth considering when we think about HK flu.
Do we know for sure that it wouldn't have taken out the same % of the older people of their time?
I cannot find the answer to that. One theory is that the effect of the virus is tied to absolute age, so somewhere where nobody lives beyond 65 will get off very lightly. The counterargument is: if they die by 65, they must be dying either of some disease (i.e. comorbidity which makes them highly susceptible to the virus) or they are dying of (premature) old age, which again should make them moree susceptible.
So we've destroyed the economy, sacrificed our freedoms, damaged our mental health, and destroyed the futures of our young, all to add an extra year or two to the lives of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s, many of whom would be long gone already even a generation ago.
So we've destroyed the economy, sacrificed our freedoms, damaged our mental health, and destroyed the futures of our young, all to add an extra year or two to the lives of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s, many of whom would be long gone already even a generation ago.
THIS is what people are struggling with. Viral unfairness. If this virus had swept through Europe 50 years ago we would barely have heard of it, because far fewer people would have made it to the age where you get to die from it.
That is a very good point and something worth considering when we think about HK flu.
Do we know for sure that it wouldn't have taken out the same % of the older people of their time?
I don't know, but age is obviously a key part of the equation - this is useful to see how the distribution has changed:
THIS is what people are struggling with. Viral unfairness. If this virus had swept through Europe 50 years ago we would barely have heard of it, because far fewer people would have made it to the age where you get to die from it.
That is a very good point and something worth considering when we think about HK flu.
Do we know for sure that it wouldn't have taken out the same % of the older people of their time?
I cannot find the answer to that. One theory is that the effect of the virus is tied to absolute age, so somewhere where nobody lives beyond 65 will get off very lightly. The counterargument is: if they die by 65, they must be dying either of some disease (i.e. comorbidity which makes them highly susceptible to the virus) or they are dying of (premature) old age, which again should make them moree susceptible.
If we pretend for now that someone aged 50 in 1820 is the health equivalent of an 80 year old in 2020, I would have thought it odds on that they would succumb to Coronavirus, had it struck, in the manner of today's 80 year old.
Surely the virus attacks weak bodies on grounds of healthiness, not actual age? The reverse would be bizarre?!
We should really be looking at hospitalisation rates. How many are going to be at risk of long term health complications? Deaths looks starker but it hides a hell of a lot of younger people who are falling seriously ill.
(and that is also what the headlines about this would have been fifty years ago. The long term effect on health).
So we've destroyed the economy, sacrificed our freedoms, damaged our mental health, and destroyed the futures of our young, all to add an extra year or two to the lives of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s, many of whom would be long gone already even a generation ago.
I think I have copied these correctly... what do we make of them? Why are the old people in Sweden who get Covid dying at such a bigger rate?
Resons I can think of:
1) iI Sweden, if you test positive for COVID and die in the next 28 days, then you count, regardless of if you have a subsequent negative test, or die from something compactly unrelated e.g. a car accented. - This would also enplane why the exes deaths in Sweden is lower than most other places.
2) amount of testing Vs number of tests, could meen that only the more extreme cases are being identified.
3) Smocking, Sweden has the lowest rate of smocking in the EU, there was some evidence that if you smoke, you are slightly less likely to die, (I don't know how verified this was, but a possibility)
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
I was a counting agent for the Liberals at that election. My Labour opposite number, someone I knew quite well, had a miniature radio with an earpiece and was trying to keep his spirits up by depressing mine!
So we've destroyed the economy, sacrificed our freedoms, damaged our mental health, and destroyed the futures of our young, all to add an extra year or two to the lives of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s, many of whom would be long gone already even a generation ago.
That graph shows the death rate of people that have caught it rather than percentage of deaths, but I dont think the latter would alter your point
THIS is what people are struggling with. Viral unfairness. If this virus had swept through Europe 50 years ago we would barely have heard of it, because far fewer people would have made it to the age where you get to die from it.
That is a very good point and something worth considering when we think about HK flu.
Do we know for sure that it wouldn't have taken out the same % of the older people of their time?
I cannot find the answer to that. One theory is that the effect of the virus is tied to absolute age, so somewhere where nobody lives beyond 65 will get off very lightly. The counterargument is: if they die by 65, they must be dying either of some disease (i.e. comorbidity which makes them highly susceptible to the virus) or they are dying of (premature) old age, which again should make them moree susceptible.
If we pretend for now that someone aged 50 in 1820 is the health equivalent of an 80 year old in 2020, I would have thought it odds on that they would succumb to Coronavirus, had it struck, in the manner of today's 80 year old.
Surely the virus attacks weak bodies on grounds of healthiness, not actual age? The reverse would be bizarre?!
I guess it comes down to why people didn't live as long in years gone by. Plenty of people died in accidents and from diseases like cholera. I don't think it's because they aged faster per se.
How he ever kept his jobs given his actions in a "personal capacity" over involvement in the whole smear-gate is more incredible than Piers Morgan's lack of knowledge of industrial scale phone hacking going on at the Mirror.
I think I have copied these correctly... what do we make of them? Why are the old people in Sweden who get Covid dying at such a bigger rate?
Just a thought isam, do you have comparable numbers for young people?
If Sweden had a higher death to identified cases in young people, that would be an indication that only the most ill are being tested in Sweden, and therefor reason to suspect that the infection/immunity rate is higher in young people.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
A neat trick. Another one is to think back not in years but in modern lifespans, which are closing in on 100.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
No gratitude for the fact we did not impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as Germany for instance did for 7 years
I think I have copied these correctly... what do we make of them? Why are the old people in Sweden who get Covid dying at such a bigger rate?
Just a thought isam, do you have comparable numbers for young people?
If Sweden had a higher death to identified cases in young people, that would be an indication that only the most ill are being tested in Sweden, and therefor reason to suspect that the infection/immunity rate is higher in young people.
THIS is what people are struggling with. Viral unfairness. If this virus had swept through Europe 50 years ago we would barely have heard of it, because far fewer people would have made it to the age where you get to die from it.
That is a very good point and something worth considering when we think about HK flu.
Do we know for sure that it wouldn't have taken out the same % of the older people of their time?
I cannot find the answer to that. One theory is that the effect of the virus is tied to absolute age, so somewhere where nobody lives beyond 65 will get off very lightly. The counterargument is: if they die by 65, they must be dying either of some disease (i.e. comorbidity which makes them highly susceptible to the virus) or they are dying of (premature) old age, which again should make them moree susceptible.
If we pretend for now that someone aged 50 in 1820 is the health equivalent of an 80 year old in 2020, I would have thought it odds on that they would succumb to Coronavirus, had it struck, in the manner of today's 80 year old.
Surely the virus attacks weak bodies on grounds of healthiness, not actual age? The reverse would be bizarre?!
I guess it comes down to why people didn't live as long in years gone by. Plenty of people died in accidents and from diseases like cholera. I don't think it's because they aged faster per se.
And has been pointed out on other occasions, low life expectancy figs were skewed by deaths at birth and of young children.
I have to say, once this is over, if I never again hear the terms "R number", "PPE", "testing," "antibodies", "ventilator capacity", "need for oxygen", "asymptomatic", "herd immunity", and "community transmission", it will be soon enough for me.
I have to say, once this is over, if I never again hear the terms "R number", "PPE", "testing," "antibodies", "ventilator capacity", "need for oxygen", "asymptomatic", "herd immunity", and "community transmission", it will be soon enough for me.
Virus fatigue.
We can then get back to Brexit, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....
So we've destroyed the economy, sacrificed our freedoms, damaged our mental health, and destroyed the futures of our young, all to add an extra year or two to the lives of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s, many of whom would be long gone already even a generation ago.
Go eff your self
Apologies, it's not my intention to offend, nor suggest we should just "let it happen".
The point I have made on several occasions is that full lockdown was unnecessary, we could have isolated the oldies and followed the Swedish model of allowing younger, healthier people to build up herd immunity.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
As @Pulpstar has indicated, this data doesn't point to being able to move forward in any particular direction. Those early June easing targets are not going to be met, are they.
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
As @Pulpstar has indicated, this data doesn't point to being able to move forward in any particular direction. Those early June easing targets are not going to be met, are they.
Worst of both worlds. Not sure the public are going to be very happy when they find everything is getting pushed back and back throughout the limited summer months we have.
I have to say, once this is over, if I never again hear the terms "R number", "PPE", "testing," "antibodies", "ventilator capacity", "need for oxygen", "asymptomatic", "herd immunity", and "community transmission", it will be soon enough for me.
Virus fatigue.
We can then get back to Brexit, Brexit, Brexit, Brexit....
- oh yes.
Trouble with this current, all consuming crisis is it's so unremittingly medical. You spend your whole time deliberately steering clear of that arena - preferably physically and if not at least mentally - but now it's all there is. The world has become like a Doctor's waiting room.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
A neat trick. Another one is to think back not in years but in modern lifespans, which are closing in on 100.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
My grandfather ((born 1889) used to tell a tale about what he was doing when WWI broke out. (holidaying with his in-laws). Only two of my 7 grandchildren were born in the 20th C!
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
A neat trick. Another one is to think back not in years but in modern lifespans, which are closing in on 100.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
My grandfather ((born 1889) used to tell a tale about what he was doing when WWI broke out. (holidaying with his in-laws). Only two of my 7 grandchildren were born in the 20th C!
And of the 5 that weren't, at least 3 will see the 22nd century.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
A neat trick. Another one is to think back not in years but in modern lifespans, which are closing in on 100.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
My grandfather ((born 1889) used to tell a tale about what he was doing when WWI broke out. (holidaying with his in-laws). Only two of my 7 grandchildren were born in the 20th C!
And of the 5 that weren't, at least 3 will see the 22nd century.
Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.
Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.
-----
There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
As @Pulpstar has indicated, this data doesn't point to being able to move forward in any particular direction. Those early June easing targets are not going to be met, are they.
Worst of both worlds. Not sure the public are going to be very happy when they find everything is getting pushed back and back throughout the limited summer months we have.
They will be steaming
They have been told lockdown was working. That their contribution was making a big difference. That they should be patient for a little while longer.
The policy is total b8llocks and the cost is gargantuan.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
A neat trick. Another one is to think back not in years but in modern lifespans, which are closing in on 100.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
My grandfather ((born 1889) used to tell a tale about what he was doing when WWI broke out. (holidaying with his in-laws). Only two of my 7 grandchildren were born in the 20th C!
And of the 5 that weren't, at least 3 will see the 22nd century.
Hopefully.
Then one of them will be saying -
"My grandfather used to tell a tale about what he was doing when ... insert event from the mid 20th century that seems impossibly ancient in the early 22nd."
So we've destroyed the economy, sacrificed our freedoms, damaged our mental health, and destroyed the futures of our young, all to add an extra year or two to the lives of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s, many of whom would be long gone already even a generation ago.
Go eff your self
Apologies, it's not my intention to offend, nor suggest we should just "let it happen".
The point I have made on several occasions is that full lockdown was unnecessary, we could have isolated the oldies and followed the Swedish model of allowing younger, healthier people to build up herd immunity.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
A neat trick. Another one is to think back not in years but in modern lifespans, which are closing in on 100.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
My grandfather ((born 1889) used to tell a tale about what he was doing when WWI broke out. (holidaying with his in-laws). Only two of my 7 grandchildren were born in the 20th C!
And of the 5 that weren't, at least 3 will see the 22nd century.
Hopefully.
Then one of them will be saying -
"My grandfather used to tell a tale about what he was doing when ... insert event from the mid 20th century that seems impossibly ancient in the early 22nd."
'When WWII ended'. Or 'We joined the EU for the first time!'
So we've destroyed the economy, sacrificed our freedoms, damaged our mental health, and destroyed the futures of our young, all to add an extra year or two to the lives of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s, many of whom would be long gone already even a generation ago.
Go eff your self
Apologies, it's not my intention to offend, nor suggest we should just "let it happen".
The point I have made on several occasions is that full lockdown was unnecessary, we could have isolated the oldies and followed the Swedish model of allowing younger, healthier people to build up herd immunity.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
A neat trick. Another one is to think back not in years but in modern lifespans, which are closing in on 100.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
My grandfather ((born 1889) used to tell a tale about what he was doing when WWI broke out. (holidaying with his in-laws). Only two of my 7 grandchildren were born in the 20th C!
And of the 5 that weren't, at least 3 will see the 22nd century.
Hopefully.
Then one of them will be saying -
"My grandfather used to tell a tale about what he was doing when ... insert event from the mid 20th century that seems impossibly ancient in the early 22nd."
...when it was Queen Elizabeth the Second's silver jubilee. ...when every cars carryied explosive liquid.
So we've destroyed the economy, sacrificed our freedoms, damaged our mental health, and destroyed the futures of our young, all to add an extra year or two to the lives of people in their 70s, 80s and 90s, many of whom would be long gone already even a generation ago.
Go eff your self
Apologies, it's not my intention to offend, nor suggest we should just "let it happen".
The point I have made on several occasions is that full lockdown was unnecessary, we could have isolated the oldies and followed the Swedish model of allowing younger, healthier people to build up herd immunity.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
We already know that "following the Swedish model" is both: 1 - Not possible in England; and 2 - Has seen far more proportional deaths in their own older population than any comparable country, so has failed in "isolating the oldies"
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
A neat trick. Another one is to think back not in years but in modern lifespans, which are closing in on 100.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
My grandfather ((born 1889) used to tell a tale about what he was doing when WWI broke out. (holidaying with his in-laws). Only two of my 7 grandchildren were born in the 20th C!
And of the 5 that weren't, at least 3 will see the 22nd century.
Hopefully.
Then one of them will be saying -
"My grandfather used to tell a tale about what he was doing when ... insert event from the mid 20th century that seems impossibly ancient in the early 22nd."
...when it was Queen Elizabeth the Second's silver jubilee. ...when every cars carryied explosive liquid.
No gratitude for the fact we did not impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as Germany for instance did for 7 years
Was that fact that you're requesting gratitude for really some sort of sacrifice made by the UK to its own detriment, or was it more a case of the UKG making the decision to do its own economy a favour, by, on the one hand, attracting 'the best and the brightest' for its financial services and other high-value industries, and, on the other hand, attracting less - but still sufficiently - skilled workers for production plants, construction sites, hospitals and nursing homes, etc., because the UK workforce was not prepared or inclined to fill these more menial roles?
The development of unemployment numbers doesn't seem to indicate that net migration had driven the British out of their jobs, and it seems fairly arguable whether the widely percieved, but hardly measurable, wage suppression was more an effect of net migration or post-GFC wage austerity.
That election was over a decade before I was born. I wonder what the cut off is for it to no longer be considered "in modern times"?
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
If you ever want to feel old, subtract your age from your birth, and then look at what was happening in that year. Most people consider things that happened during their lives as relatively recent, and exaggerate just how far back "history" is
A neat trick. Another one is to think back not in years but in modern lifespans, which are closing in on 100.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
My grandfather ((born 1889) used to tell a tale about what he was doing when WWI broke out. (holidaying with his in-laws). Only two of my 7 grandchildren were born in the 20th C!
And of the 5 that weren't, at least 3 will see the 22nd century.
Hopefully.
Then one of them will be saying -
"My grandfather used to tell a tale about what he was doing when ... insert event from the mid 20th century that seems impossibly ancient in the early 22nd."
...when it was Queen Elizabeth the Second's silver jubilee. ...when every cars carryied explosive liquid.
Never mind the jubilee; I was a Scout on programme selling duty in Regent St on Coronation Day!
just noticed BBC1 were interviewing an academic and there were the usual stock "library pictures". The pictures were of students working in a library. Last time I saw that joke was on "Not the Nine O'Clock News."
No gratitude for the fact we did not impose transition controls on free movement from the new accession countries in 2004 as Germany for instance did for 7 years
Was that fact that you're requesting gratitude for really some sort of sacrifice made by the UK to its own detriment, or was it more a case of the UKG making the decision to do its own economy a favour, by, on the one hand, attracting 'the best and the brightest' for its financial services and other high-value industries, and, on the other hand, attracting less - but still sufficiently - skilled workers for production plants, construction sites, hospitals and nursing homes, etc., because the UK workforce was not prepared or inclined to fill these more menial roles?
The development of unemployment numbers doesn't seem to indicate that net migration had driven the British out of their jobs, and it seems fairly arguable whether the widely percieved, but hardly measurable, wage suppression was more an effect of net migration or post-GFC wage austerity.
That decision undoubtedly suppressed wages for the lower skilled and added to pressure on housing and public services and was a key reason for the Leave vote in 2016
Comments
They seem a bit eager to do a hatchet job on SKS.
and thees large is numbers 26% for Stockholm are the numbers coming from people working form the Swedish government, who presumably have the most data from Sweden.
Fact checking seems to have gone out of fashion.
Its the opposite of what we are trying to be in society.
Our attitudes have greatly hampered our ability to face the truth and respond accordingly. We would like to believe the virus affects all equally, but nothing could be further from the truth
It seems the truth is very different.
https://twitter.com/UKGovScotland/status/1260924359260229633?s=20
It's strange to think but 1970 now is comparably long ago as the Great Depression period before before WWII was when I was in primary school.
Obviously given the criticism of the Swedish approach the authorities do have a rather strong incentive to assure people that they are going to have herd immunity. Though how they will get it on the basis of 20% is still a mystery to me.
Swedish % rates of deaths to infections by age
under 10 0.01
20-29 0.00
30-39 0.00
40-49 0.01
50-59 0.02
60-69 0.07
70-79 0.24
80-89 0.35
90+ 0.39
If we can instantly identify everyone infected, we can control it to the point of rapid extinction, and allow loads of social activities again dependent on all participants taking the test and passing it (or going off to self-isolate if they've got it).
Also, a significant amount of their deaths (like here), are due to failures in care homes, which they admit they failed on and are now taking steps to improve by hiring many new staff.
That's a big call, if Oxford come through and there is a vaccine in the Autumn, well they have just killed a load of extra people. If like the WHO said yesterday, this might be something like AIDs that we have to live with forever, they might be found to have been correct.
https://twitter.com/BBCkatyaadler/status/1260923694311866369?s=20
Probably the denialists would do better to question the estimates of R0 rather than the fatality rate.
What more do you need to know?
And yet Anders Tegnell (who I assume you're talking about) thought it was going to happen very soon in Stockholm, on the basis of "up to 25%" having been infected:
"We could reach herd immunity in Stockholm within a matter of weeks."
That was two weeks ago:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2020/04/28/coronavirus-covid-19-sweden-anders-tegnell-herd-immunity/3031536001/
All very strange.
.......1896......
I relay hope that happens, as I am sure that everybody does. If it does I will post a very sincerer appolage on here.
Sadly I am doubtful that will happen, at least not in the near term.
r0 = 0.99, 0% herd immunity. It's spread already so is higher than 1.
r0 = 2, 50% herd immunity threshold.
r0 = 12 (Measles) = 90+% threshold.
Are we near even 50% ?
I'd go with Witty's 4%. It sounds sensible and his team will have crunched the numbers.
I've still got a while until Neville Chamberlain is Prime Minister in my backwards timeline, but not as long as I'd like.
60-69 7%
70-79 24%
80-89 35%
90+ 39%
Spain
60-69 5%
70-79 14%
80-89 21%
90+ 22%
Italy
60-69 10%
70-79 25%
80-89 31%
90+ 27%
I think I have copied these correctly... what do we make of them? Why are the old people in Sweden who get Covid dying at such a bigger rate?
The government was reacting to remarks by Sanofi CEO Paul Hudson, who said "the US government has the right to the largest pre-order because it's invested in taking the risk".
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-52659510
'A recent survey from one of our hospitals in Stockholm found that 27% of staff there are immune. We think that most of those are immune from transmission in society, not the workplace.'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/av/formula1/52641917
https://www.populationpyramid.net/united-kingdom/2020/
Surely the virus attacks weak bodies on grounds of healthiness, not actual age? The reverse would be bizarre?!
(and that is also what the headlines about this would have been fifty years ago. The long term effect on health).
1) iI Sweden, if you test positive for COVID and die in the next 28 days, then you count, regardless of if you have a subsequent negative test, or die from something compactly unrelated e.g. a car accented. - This would also enplane why the exes deaths in Sweden is lower than most other places.
2) amount of testing Vs number of tests, could meen that only the more extreme cases are being identified.
3) Smocking, Sweden has the lowest rate of smocking in the EU, there was some evidence that if you smoke, you are slightly less likely to die, (I don't know how verified this was, but a possibility)
If Sweden had a higher death to identified cases in young people, that would be an indication that only the most ill are being tested in Sweden, and therefor reason to suspect that the infection/immunity rate is higher in young people.
So, an example, Shakespeare - to get to him takes just 4 lives.
This, I find, is a great way to shrink human history and feel more connected to it.
under 10 0.01
20-29 0.00
30-39 0.00
40-49 0.01
50-59 0.02
60-69 0.07
70-79 0.24
80-89 0.35
90+ 0.39
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8319843/Sir-Mark-Sedwill-coronavirus-time-Boris-Johnson.html
They cannot help themselves
Are remainers going to endorse this action in this climate
It’ll do our spoiled young Remainers good to remain in Britain for the summer holidays"
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11618439/itll-do-our-spoiled-young-remainers-good-to-remain-in-britain-for-the-summer-holidays/
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-52662171
Virus fatigue.
If you don't test enough to identify mild cases then you can't use case numbers to calculate a mortality rate.
The point I have made on several occasions is that full lockdown was unnecessary, we could have isolated the oldies and followed the Swedish model of allowing younger, healthier people to build up herd immunity.
It's my view that the course of action the government has pursued will cause a great depression that will be an order of magnitude more harmful than the virus. Here's a professor from Bristol University saying just that:
"If the countermeasures we take reduce our life expectancy by more than 3 months, then because there are so many of us in the country, that means we will actually suffer more loss of life than we will from the epidemic itself".
https://www.energylivenews.com/2020/04/02/an-economic-crash-could-cost-more-lives-than-the-coronavirus/
I'm not arguing against lockdown because I'm bored and fancy a pint with my mates, I'm arguing against it because I think it's a calamitous policy that will ultimately hurt more than it helps.
Trouble with this current, all consuming crisis is it's so unremittingly medical. You spend your whole time deliberately steering clear of that arena - preferably physically and if not at least mentally - but now it's all there is. The world has become like a Doctor's waiting room.
Actually on checking semester is Swedish for holiday, which seems weirdly appropriate for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.
They have been told lockdown was working. That their contribution was making a big difference. That they should be patient for a little while longer.
The policy is total b8llocks and the cost is gargantuan.
This is a country getting ready to explode.
"My grandfather used to tell a tale about what he was doing when ... insert event from the mid 20th century that seems impossibly ancient in the early 22nd."
Or
'We joined the EU for the first time!'
...when it was Queen Elizabeth the Second's silver jubilee.
...when every cars carryied explosive liquid.
Only 8 months of the circus left, a perfect illustration of what will happen if the withdrawal agreement is extended.
WTO terms look inviting.
1 - Not possible in England; and
2 - Has seen far more proportional deaths in their own older population than any comparable country, so has failed in "isolating the oldies"
https://fee.org/articles/why-sweden-s-covid-19-strategy-is-quietly-becoming-the-world-s-strategy/?utm_source=zapier&fbclid=IwAR2prXEq_gHX90W249dG6U8Fos0rfX525gzXer_zHoE5GPcy5yAfnHEX7-c
The development of unemployment numbers doesn't seem to indicate that net migration had driven the British out of their jobs, and it seems fairly arguable whether the widely percieved, but hardly measurable, wage suppression was more an effect of net migration or post-GFC wage austerity.
Just as well the breweries are closed.....
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1260937311363063808?s=20
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1260937314672525312?s=20
440,000 applications for 1.3bn on its first day.
Goodness me. Goodness me.
Interesting look at where local authorities are seeing rises and falls in cases. These are normalised figures for the 5 day rolling average.