Oh dear. The new Conservative Party really is not just full of arseholes, it is full of arseholes who are so thick that they think that in this day and age it is ok to put your name to something so politically toxic.
What is meant by "this is from the Twitter account that ... Conservative MPs retweeted"? Does that mean they retweeted some other post that has nothing to do with this one and are now guilty by association?
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.
As will the Nats - it would appear SKS poses absolutely zero threat to them in Scotland.
I would be surprised if even Theuniondivvie agrees with that. From the time I have spent in Scotland it is easy to figure that PM Corbyn would not have been a popular option for them. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Labour party is now more in the mould of Gordon Brown (who was very popular there) they might ( I know it is might), give the SNP a run for their money if they also think it is the best way to bash the Tories.
Always good to get blast of pre 2007 nostalgia.
I think I was one of the few that at the time of the Labour leadership election suggested that SKS would be more popular with SLab members than Nandy's, Philips' and Thornberry's kneejerk Nat bashing; he did that by not mentioning Scotland very much at all and exuding at least the possibility of competence. SLab members are of course not very representative of Scottish voters.
As far as Scotland goes now Starmer is in a bit of a cleft stick; he can either go on not saying much which doesn't change things, or more likely he'll be persuaded by the brights sparks of SLab to indulge in some SNPbad leavened by vague promises of more powers at some indeterminate point in the future, and at the pleasure of a Labour government.
Re. Corbyn, I don't think he was particularly toxic in Scotland, just seen as a bit crap and unlikely ever to be in a position to enact his vision however palatable or unpalatable it might have been.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Yes. I want all future antibody results to be labelled as either using the Roche test, reference lab tests, or garbage mass market junk, so that I can judge the reliability of the numbers appropriately.
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?
That was what the virologist was saying on world service....he thinks that some anti body tests pick up on people with weak Covid 19 antibodies (people who have not had it or not imuned from it....which give a lot of false positives and the dangerous theory now that many people do not show symptoms....
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
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?
It is all very confusing. One bloke goes on a nightout, 120+ people get it, one conference in Scotland, 50% of people get it, Germany Carnival event, 40%...at those sort of rates you would expect a huge proportion of a place like London to have caught it given the Tube, office working, high density living.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Yes. I want all future antibody results to be labelled as either using the Roche test, reference lab tests, or garbage mass market junk, so that I can judge the reliability of the numbers appropriately.
If Biden now leads in Ne 02 by 11% he also only needs Pennsylvania and one of Michigan and Wisconsin and the Hillary states to win the Electoral College.
Correction, Pennsylvania and Michigan and NE 02 and the Hillary states would be enough for Biden to win the Electoral College but not Pennsylvania and Wisconsin
I think one of the wrong assumptions to make is that Biden will automatically win all the states that Hillary did. Minnesota is an obvious example here given the shift of the votes but to me one that could be interesting is Virginia - not a huge amount of difference last time and the demographics have shifted more to the Democrats over the years but there have been a lot of protests against the actions of the Democrat-led state government over topics such as abortion, gun control etc. That might tip a higher turnout to Trump in November.
New Hampshire is another one of the Clinton 2016 states to keep an eye on. Winning margin of only 0.37% and has a Republican governor to tip the scales in Trump's favour.
Given it appears that high levels of testerone appear to provide a good defence against catching this, I would have thought they would all be safe as houses.
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's gone
We shall see what the offer is. I think Boris is a tosser and the floodgates have opened on the fiscal side so frankly, I will take a long hard look at the manifestos in 2024. As should any sentient being.
A fiscally loose, Leave party is not what you support so how will you vote?
I will vote Tory as usual
That party no longer exists. You can vote for Boris Johnson's Popular Front of Little England if you like.
The Tory Party still exists, I even voted for it in the European elections the Brexit Party won.
It just brought most of the Brexit Party vote back into the Tory tent
Nope, it was a reverse takeover by the Brexit Party. Most of the loons and lightweights that make up the current cabinet would get a ringing endorsement from El Duce Nige. The Tory party was a big tent party. You could fit the combined intellect of the folk that now run it into a very small echo chamber inside a very very small teepee. The real Tory Party is dead, sadly. It was murdered by your mate Boris Johnson and his psychopath best buddy.
All very well but had the Tories stuck with May and her Withdrawal Agreement and not delivered Brexit they would have been obliterated at the next general election under FPTP as the Canadian Tories were in 1993 with the Brexit Party replacing them as the main party of the right as the Reform Party did in Canada.
Of course in Canada the Reform Party effectively took over the Tories there too to create the Conservative Party of Canada in the early 2000s.
That is your speculation. My speculation is that in that parallel universe the Tory Party (when it was still just about recognisable as such) would have still won because Jeremy Corbyn was still Jeremy Corbyn, and that is why people voted Tory last time, and it is why they will not next. Johnson has destroyed the Conservative Party, probably for a generation. There is no-one I can see that has the ability to rescue it. It will have to suffer three catastrophic defeats before it will find the next Cameron to clear out the swiveleyed nutjobs.
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.
As will the Nats - it would appear SKS poses absolutely zero threat to them in Scotland.
I would be surprised if even Theuniondivvie agrees with that. From the time I have spent in Scotland it is easy to figure that PM Corbyn would not have been a popular option for them. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Labour party is now more in the mould of Gordon Brown (who was very popular there) they might ( I know it is might), give the SNP a run for their money if they also think it is the best way to bash the Tories.
Always good to get blast of pre 2007 nostalgia.
I think I was one of the few that at the time of the Labour leadership election suggested that SKS would be more popular with SLab members than Nandy's, Philips' and Thornberry's kneejerk Nat bashing; he did that by not mentioning Scotland very much at all and exuding at least the possibility of competence. SLab members are of course not very representative of Scottish voters.
As far as Scotland goes now Starmer is in a bit of a cleft stick; he can either go on not saying much which doesn't change things, or more likely he'll be persuaded by the brights sparks of SLab to indulge in some SNPbad leavened by vague promises of more powers at some indeterminate point in the future, and at the pleasure of a Labour government.
Re. Corbyn, I don't think he was particularly toxic in Scotland, just seen as a bit crap and unlikely ever to be in a position to enact his vision however palatable or unpalatable it might have been.
Didn't Mr Corbyn shock quite a few people with his first major speech in Scotland? Complete ignorance that it had a different legal system, nationalised water (he was demanding that it be nationalised!), etc. I trtied to work out at the time if it was malicious obfuscation, dementia, or ignorance. In hindsight perhaps IO think he was simply talking to his southern audience - not willing to adjust the message for a few Jocks who probably wouldn't vote for his party anyway.
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.
The briefing the government scientists gave they made it clear that it was well below what they thought it was. I believe what they briefed is they still think it is in single digits nationally.
Tbh, I'd wait until we have mass antibody testing before listening to anything. In other countries where they have rolled it out we've seen higher than expected levels of immunity, I don't see why the UK would be any different. If anything I'd expect some parts to start approaching herd immunity because the lockdown has been so lax.
Swine flu in 2009 infected about 20% of the US population, and Spanish Flu about a third of the world's population. We do not have to assume that most people will get COVID-19; it might be significantly less than half the population of the UK.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Yes. I want all future antibody results to be labelled as either using the Roche test, reference lab tests, or garbage mass market junk, so that I can judge the reliability of the numbers appropriately.
The Tuscany test is a blood test...
So are all the antibody tests. But which one are they using?
One incredibly sensible thing the UK government did was creating these ground truth sampling programme in mid January. I don't know what other governments did.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Yes. I want all future antibody results to be labelled as either using the Roche test, reference lab tests, or garbage mass market junk, so that I can judge the reliability of the numbers appropriately.
The Tuscany test is a blood test...
All the antibody tests will be blood tests. The question is - what is the nature of the test is being used? They seem to have very different levels of sensitivity.
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
No it's looking at a population study...out of the 179,000k randomly tested it found only 5 with the virus....
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
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?
It is all very confusing. One bloke goes on a nightout, 120+ people get it, one conference in Scotland, 50% of people get it, Germany Carnival event, 40%...at those sort of rates you would expect a huge proportion of a place like London to have caught it given the Tube, office working, high density living.
Isn't that an observation bias?
You would expect some variability in how infective a particular individual was, in a particular situation, and clearly the events where an individual was most infective are the ones that are most noticed.
That doesn't make them representative of average infectiousness.
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
No it's looking at a population study...out of the 179,000k randomly tested it found only 5 with the virus....
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
Is the Roche test a blood sample?
Yes the Roche one is. It isn't one of these "pregnancy test" style ones (none of those work). It is lab based.
The difference between the Roche one and say the UK government own one (that is very accurate) is that is is fast (just a few seconds for the machine to process it) and able to be mass produced. However, it still requires an special bit of kit in a lab to process it.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Is the Roche test a blood test....I guess it is if it's got that kind of reliability....
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?
That was what the virologist was saying on world service....he thinks that some anti body tests pick up on people with weak Covid 19 antibodies (people who have not had it or not imuned from it....which give a lot of false positives and the dangerous theory now that many people do not show symptoms....
Equally, there have been tests created that only pick up some, massive, recent infections. This was why various antibody tests have been rejected in the UK before this.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Yes. I want all future antibody results to be labelled as either using the Roche test, reference lab tests, or garbage mass market junk, so that I can judge the reliability of the numbers appropriately.
The Tuscany test is a blood test...
So were all the tests we bought in April that were hopeless.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
Was wondering if different international serology tests are using different thresholds. In other words the intent of the study might be a factor - are they trying to estimate presumed immunity, or estimate the number who've had it?
No - the vast majority of the serology tests detect the antibody to the nucleocapsid protein - which is produced in profusion, but is not a neutralising antibody. AFAIK, that's also true of the Roche test.
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
No it's looking at a population study...out of the 179,000k randomly tested it found only 5 with the virus....
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
Is the Roche test a blood sample?
Yes the Roche one is. It isn't one of these "pregnancy test" style ones (none of those work). It is lab based.
The difference between the Roche one and say the UK government own one (that is very accurate) is that is is fast (just a few seconds for the machine to process it) and able to be mass produced. However, it still requires an special bit of kit in a lab to process it.
You answered my question....for that kind of accuracy it would have to be a blood test...that is why I find the Tuscany one worrying....
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
No it's looking at a population study...out of the 179,000k randomly tested it found only 5 with the virus....
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
Is the Roche test a blood sample?
Yes the Roche one is. It isn't one of these "pregnancy test" style ones (none of those work). It is lab based.
The difference between the Roche one and say the UK government own one (that is very accurate) is that is is fast (just a few seconds for the machine to process it) and able to be mass produced. However, it still requires an special bit of kit in a lab to process it.
You answered my question....for that kind of accuracy it would have to be a blood test...that is why I find the Tuscany one worrying....
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.
As will the Nats - it would appear SKS poses absolutely zero threat to them in Scotland.
I would be surprised if even Theuniondivvie agrees with that. From the time I have spent in Scotland it is easy to figure that PM Corbyn would not have been a popular option for them. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Labour party is now more in the mould of Gordon Brown (who was very popular there) they might ( I know it is might), give the SNP a run for their money if they also think it is the best way to bash the Tories.
Always good to get blast of pre 2007 nostalgia.
I think I was one of the few that at the time of the Labour leadership election suggested that SKS would be more popular with SLab members than Nandy's, Philips' and Thornberry's kneejerk Nat bashing; he did that by not mentioning Scotland very much at all and exuding at least the possibility of competence. SLab members are of course not very representative of Scottish voters.
As far as Scotland goes now Starmer is in a bit of a cleft stick; he can either go on not saying much which doesn't change things, or more likely he'll be persuaded by the brights sparks of SLab to indulge in some SNPbad leavened by vague promises of more powers at some indeterminate point in the future, and at the pleasure of a Labour government.
Re. Corbyn, I don't think he was particularly toxic in Scotland, just seen as a bit crap and unlikely ever to be in a position to enact his vision however palatable or unpalatable it might have been.
Didn't Mr Corbyn shock quite a few people with his first major speech in Scotland? Complete ignorance that it had a different legal system, nationalised water (he was demanding that it be nationalised!), etc. I trtied to work out at the time if it was malicious obfuscation, dementia, or ignorance. In hindsight perhaps IO think he was simply talking to his southern audience - not willing to adjust the message for a few Jocks who probably wouldn't vote for his party anyway.
He wore a tartan scarf though. If that wasn't enough to turn things around, what was?
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
If those 4 million are disproportionately social though by choice or design, the herd effect will be greater than for a homogenous population. Still not much though.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Yes. I want all future antibody results to be labelled as either using the Roche test, reference lab tests, or garbage mass market junk, so that I can judge the reliability of the numbers appropriately.
The Tuscany test is a blood test...
So were all the tests we bought in April that were hopeless.
I hope they were not blood tests..they were going to be mailed out on Amazon...I hope the Govt wasn't relying on us taking bloods at home and popping it in the post....
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
No it's looking at a population study...out of the 179,000k randomly tested it found only 5 with the virus....
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
Is the Roche test a blood sample?
Yes the Roche one is. It isn't one of these "pregnancy test" style ones (none of those work). It is lab based.
The difference between the Roche one and say the UK government own one (that is very accurate) is that is is fast (just a few seconds for the machine to process it) and able to be mass produced. However, it still requires an special bit of kit in a lab to process it.
You answered my question....for that kind of accuracy it would have to be a blood test...that is why I find the Tuscany one worrying....
It still depends. Lots of the "blood tests", where still found to be garbage. They were developed by only testing very severe hospitalized patients, and found not to work on those with more mild symptoms. They just weren't sensitive enough.
Unless we know what exact test the Italian study used, it is hard to say for certain.
We do know that the UK Porton Down lab test is accurate (but very slow).
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
It almost certainly is not wishful thinking, since there are much lower confirmed infection rates amongst children than adults. So either they're generally immune, or are asymptomatic, or have better hygiene and other preventative strategies. The third seems vanishingly unlikely, and the other two are pretty much the same thing as far as herd immunity is concerned.
Theoretically (I suppose) they could keep on getting it and passing it on without ever developing symptoms, but that also seems to fly in the face of all the evidence we have.
Much more likely the Italian study is flawed in some way.
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
No it's looking at a population study...out of the 179,000k randomly tested it found only 5 with the virus....
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
Is the Roche test a blood sample?
Yes the Roche one is. It isn't one of these "pregnancy test" style ones (none of those work). It is lab based.
The difference between the Roche one and say the UK government own one (that is very accurate) is that is is fast (just a few seconds for the machine to process it) and able to be mass produced. However, it still requires an special bit of kit in a lab to process it.
You answered my question....for that kind of accuracy it would have to be a blood test...that is why I find the Tuscany one worrying....
Isn't every single antibody test a blood test?
Not a medical expert - but I can't see how you'd get a good sample of antibodies without looking at a blood sample.
The issue with test specificity/sensitivity is not so much the sample source* for these antibody test, as what is done with the sample.
*Yes, this is a massive issue for the swab tests for current infection
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.
As will the Nats - it would appear SKS poses absolutely zero threat to them in Scotland.
I would be surprised if even Theuniondivvie agrees with that. From the time I have spent in Scotland it is easy to figure that PM Corbyn would not have been a popular option for them. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Labour party is now more in the mould of Gordon Brown (who was very popular there) they might ( I know it is might), give the SNP a run for their money if they also think it is the best way to bash the Tories.
Always good to get blast of pre 2007 nostalgia.
I think I was one of the few that at the time of the Labour leadership election suggested that SKS would be more popular with SLab members than Nandy's, Philips' and Thornberry's kneejerk Nat bashing; he did that by not mentioning Scotland very much at all and exuding at least the possibility of competence. SLab members are of course not very representative of Scottish voters.
As far as Scotland goes now Starmer is in a bit of a cleft stick; he can either go on not saying much which doesn't change things, or more likely he'll be persuaded by the brights sparks of SLab to indulge in some SNPbad leavened by vague promises of more powers at some indeterminate point in the future, and at the pleasure of a Labour government.
Re. Corbyn, I don't think he was particularly toxic in Scotland, just seen as a bit crap and unlikely ever to be in a position to enact his vision however palatable or unpalatable it might have been.
Didn't Mr Corbyn shock quite a few people with his first major speech in Scotland? Complete ignorance that it had a different legal system, nationalised water (he was demanding that it be nationalised!), etc. I trtied to work out at the time if it was malicious obfuscation, dementia, or ignorance. In hindsight perhaps IO think he was simply talking to his southern audience - not willing to adjust the message for a few Jocks who probably wouldn't vote for his party anyway.
He wore a tartan scarf though. If that wasn't enough to turn things around, what was?
Oh dear. The new Conservative Party really is not just full of arseholes, it is full of arseholes who are so thick that they think that in this day and age it is ok to put your name to something so politically toxic.
What is meant by "this is from the Twitter account that ... Conservative MPs retweeted"? Does that mean they retweeted some other post that has nothing to do with this one and are now guilty by association?
Yes it is exactly that. Extremely sad and pathetic behaviour to make such a tenuous attack. No surprise
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
No it's looking at a population study...out of the 179,000k randomly tested it found only 5 with the virus....
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
Is the Roche test a blood sample?
Yes the Roche one is. It isn't one of these "pregnancy test" style ones (none of those work). It is lab based.
The difference between the Roche one and say the UK government own one (that is very accurate) is that is is fast (just a few seconds for the machine to process it) and able to be mass produced. However, it still requires an special bit of kit in a lab to process it.
You answered my question....for that kind of accuracy it would have to be a blood test...that is why I find the Tuscany one worrying....
Isn't every single antibody test a blood test?
Not necessarily. For example, if you're looking for IgA antibodies, which are preferentially expressed in the mucous membrane. But most, yes.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Yes. I want all future antibody results to be labelled as either using the Roche test, reference lab tests, or garbage mass market junk, so that I can judge the reliability of the numbers appropriately.
The Tuscany test is a blood test...
So were all the tests we bought in April that were hopeless.
I hope they were not blood tests..they were going to be mailed out on Amazon...I hope the Govt wasn't relying on us taking bloods at home and popping it in the post....
I believe they were the pinprick kind where you get the results at home as well.
Given it appears that high levels of testerone appear to provide a good defence against catching this, I would have thought they would all be safe as houses.
Pro cyclists already have rigorous hygiene because colds and flu can rip through the "boys on the bus" and take the whole team out.
Also the ToB is only a 2.HC category race and is not on the World Tour so nobody gives a fuck.
If that is the truth - I hadn't looked at the results in depth but had understood casually 10% nationally - that is a downer, but also seems we have some variation in claims from Stockholm to NYC where the progress seemed higher relative to the impact.
The NYC death toll is insane, far higher than anywhere else (2x London), so it'd fit with higher immunity levels.
A virologist on world service was saying that many anti-body tests pick up on weak level of anti-bodies for Covid 19. He didn't think this showed either immunity, or that someone has had it.....
That is why the Tuscany data is so alarming....
It is why these Roche ones are "game changers". All the testing that has been done shows they are 99.8% accurate. Lots of the commerical ones are utter crap. The big failing in the 9 the UK bought and tested was they worked great if you suffered really badly with CV, but no good for those who only suffered mildly.
It should be noted that the UK figures should be accurate, as the test they are using is the one that they then use to assess all the commercial antibody ones. They have had 700+ "ground truth" samples to work against since January i.e. all definitely no-CV, then tracked them through as people got it.
Yes. I want all future antibody results to be labelled as either using the Roche test, reference lab tests, or garbage mass market junk, so that I can judge the reliability of the numbers appropriately.
The Tuscany test is a blood test...
So were all the tests we bought in April that were hopeless.
I hope they were not blood tests..they were going to be mailed out on Amazon...I hope the Govt wasn't relying on us taking bloods at home and popping it in the post....
The kits that the UK bought and failed accuracy were blood tests, but were home test kits. You pricked your own finger and dropped it in a cartridge. Then in 15 mins or so, it would produce a result. No mailing back required.
That is why the government were so keen on them. They could mail out 100,000s of them dead easy.
The Roche test isn't this at all, and will require been sent to a lab. I believe initially they will be for front line healthcare professionals, but I guess after that you go to somewhere like Boots.
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
No it's looking at a population study...out of the 179,000k randomly tested it found only 5 with the virus....
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
Is the Roche test a blood sample?
Yes the Roche one is. It isn't one of these "pregnancy test" style ones (none of those work). It is lab based.
The difference between the Roche one and say the UK government own one (that is very accurate) is that is is fast (just a few seconds for the machine to process it) and able to be mass produced. However, it still requires an special bit of kit in a lab to process it.
You answered my question....for that kind of accuracy it would have to be a blood test...that is why I find the Tuscany one worrying....
It still depends. Lots of the "blood tests", where still found to be garbage. They were developed by only testing very severe hospitalized patients, and found not to work on those with more mild symptoms. They just weren't sensitive enough.
Unless we know what exact test the Italian study used, it is hard to say for certain.
We do know that the UK Porton Down lab test is accurate (but very slow).
Accurate but slow is good for "Have you had it" on a population basis. Noone is waiting on one of these type of tests to see if they should head back to work at the hospital.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
And, apparently from a very quick read, chucking everything out of the model that was 'not significant'. That approach has somewhat gone out of fashion and is unlikely to give the best model (including/excluding non-significant predictors may still change the coefficient of the included variable). R^2 was 0.22, so the model didn't explain that much (a lot of these models don't, but another reason to be cautious). The approach is interesting, but I'd bet that a bit of tweaking of the assumptions/letting other predictors in the model might change the final estimates of those infected by quite a lot.
Given it appears that high levels of testerone appear to provide a good defence against catching this, I would have thought they would all be safe as houses.
Pro cyclists already have rigorous hygiene because colds and flu can rip through the "boys on the bus" and take the whole team out.
Also the ToB is only a 2.HC category race and is not on the World Tour so nobody gives a fuck.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
If those 4 million are disproportionately social though by choice or design, the herd effect will be greater than for a homogenous population. Still not much though.
Yes - on the early part of that journey from gnat to elephant.
What's that in response to? The 14 day quarantine period? Nothing has changed fo EU citizens otherwise.
If I'm reading it right the threat is that a "reasoned opinion" will be sent to the UK if nothing is done within 4 months.
A period of reflection from the EU might be appreciated.
Or, maybe, they could try and procure some ventilators?
I can assure you that we are in no position to gloat regarding ventilators. Our government's attempt to give a PR coup to Dyson and JCB was pathetic. None of the peabrains in the cabinet realised there is a big difference between a highly calibrated and regulated ventilator and a vacuum cleaner or digger.
Time to drop this tedious smear, and think of something that sticks.
The ventilator was undergoing clinical trials, so clearly the skills were there.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I would guess less.
It's completely unscientific, but I know very, very few people who have had this.
Admittedly I have a fairly small social circle that skews heavily towards middle class office workers who can self-isolate better. But the only people I know who have had this are elderly and have caught it in hospital. I'd have expected at least one of my peers to have had this by now.
Look at other samples too. How many people on PB have had it? Or have had friends or family who have? There was GideonWise and Charles' father. Beyond that I'm struggling - even Foxy's test came back negative if I recall.
How many of our 650 MPs have caught it? Or premier league footballers? The sort of people who make the news when they catch it. Again, I know they're not using the Tube daily or working in a warehouse, but my very unscientific feel is that there hasn't been very widespread transmission so far.
The implication is that we've locked down for weeks, destroyed the economy, but haven't stamped out community transmission or achieved anything like a decent degree of herd immunity as Sweden has. We should have either locked down properly (fines for going outside) or taken the Swedish approach.
What's that in response to? The 14 day quarantine period? Nothing has changed fo EU citizens otherwise.
If I'm reading it right the threat is that a "reasoned opinion" will be sent to the UK if nothing is done within 4 months.
A period of reflection from the EU might be appreciated.
Or, maybe, they could try and procure some ventilators?
I can assure you that we are in no position to gloat regarding ventilators. Our government's attempt to give a PR coup to Dyson and JCB was pathetic. None of the peabrains in the cabinet realised there is a big difference between a highly calibrated and regulated ventilator and a vacuum cleaner or digger.
Time to drop this tedious smear, and think of something that sticks.
The ventilator was undergoing clinical trials, so clearly the skills were there.
Of all the things to criticise the government over their handling of this pandemic, and there are plenty, the ventilator challenge is so far down the list it isn't even worse considering.
In fact if PPE and testing had been run in a similar manner, we would be in a hell of a lot better position. The idea of not sticking all your eggs in one basket and all that.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
...
Look at other samples too. How many people on PB have had it? Or have had friends or family who have? There was GideonWise and Charles' father. Beyond that I'm struggling - even Foxy's test came back negative if I recall.
...
Has GideonWise been seen since he went down with this?
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
Vaccine and/or treatments - I cannot see any other exit from this.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
And, apparently from a very quick read, chucking everything out of the model that was 'not significant'. That approach has somewhat gone out of fashion and is unlikely to give the best model (including/excluding non-significant predictors may still change the coefficient of the included variable). R^2 was 0.22, so the model didn't explain that much (a lot of these models don't, but another reason to be cautious). The approach is interesting, but I'd bet that a bit of tweaking of the assumptions/letting other predictors in the model might change the final estimates of those infected by quite a lot.
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.....
Tuscany population: 3.7m (source: Google) 0.5% of that is 18.5k Tuscany currently has 9.8k confirmed cases and just under a thousand confirmed deaths.
Saying they've successfully tracked down half of the infected population, and have a fatality rate of 5% (ignoring all the deaths not yet confirmed), seems way out of kilter with all the other available data on this.
It's much more likely to be an order of magnitude higher than 0.5%.
That's the point...they've done 179,000 blood tests and found that it has affected 0.5%...they are doing 400,000 in total......
So, the asymptomatic stuff just appears to be a whole load of wishful thinking....
Except we've had research here an elsewhere that shows it isn't. The Italian study may be looking into something else.
No it's looking at a population study...out of the 179,000k randomly tested it found only 5 with the virus....
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
Is the Roche test a blood sample?
Yes the Roche one is. It isn't one of these "pregnancy test" style ones (none of those work). It is lab based.
The difference between the Roche one and say the UK government own one (that is very accurate) is that is is fast (just a few seconds for the machine to process it) and able to be mass produced. However, it still requires an special bit of kit in a lab to process it.
You answered my question....for that kind of accuracy it would have to be a blood test...that is why I find the Tuscany one worrying....
It still depends. Lots of the "blood tests", where still found to be garbage. They were developed by only testing very severe hospitalized patients, and found not to work on those with more mild symptoms. They just weren't sensitive enough.
Unless we know what exact test the Italian study used, it is hard to say for certain.
We do know that the UK Porton Down lab test is accurate (but very slow).
One point about all these tests (both antibody and virus) is that they require massive amplification of what you're testing for in order to produce a signal.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
Vaccine and/or treatments - I cannot see any other exit from this.
I have come to this conclusion, and all those that think lets just hide away for another month and then life will get back to normal are going to be sorely disappointed.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
Vaccine and/or treatments - I cannot see any other exit from this.
I have come to this conclusion, and all those that think lets just hide away for another month and then life will get back to normal are going to be sorely disappointed.
There are a lot of optimists out there likely to be disappointed:
(Guardian) But only 3% of people told the ONS that their lives would never return to normal. People were asked how long it would take for their lives to return to normal. Here are the results.
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.....
So if Tuscany have a test - why the hullaballoo over the Uk one ?
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
Vaccine and/or treatments - I cannot see any other exit from this.
Particularly as an effective vaccine is more likely to produce a sustained neutralising immune response than is actual infection (which tends to eff up the immune response).
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.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
Vaccine and/or treatments - I cannot see any other exit from this.
I have come to this conclusion, and all those that think lets just hide away for another month and then life will get back to normal are going to be sorely disappointed.
There are a lot of optimists out there likely to be disappointed:
(Guardian) But only 3% of people told the ONS that their lives would never return to normal. People were asked how long it would take for their lives to return to normal. Here are the results.
Less than 3 months - 10%
4 to 6 months - 23%
7 to 12 months - 26%
More than 12 months - 20%
Never - 3%
Not sure - 18%
I am really concerned for how society will react. So far people on the whole have done as have been asked, with the belief in a few months we will have "flattened the curve" and we will be back to normal.
Now people don't want to send their kids back to school or return to work, in the belief another month or two and it will be all good. When in all likelihood, it isn't and you are just going to have to get on with it. At the moment, the government is all about nudging you back, you don't have to send your kid if you don't want to etc, but at some point everybody is just going to have to. The idea of only going back to work or school when zero risk isn't realistic and not sure how people are going to take it when there is more shove than nudge.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
...
Look at other samples too. How many people on PB have had it? Or have had friends or family who have? There was GideonWise and Charles' father. Beyond that I'm struggling - even Foxy's test came back negative if I recall.
...
Has GideonWise been seen since he went down with this?
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
...
Look at other samples too. How many people on PB have had it? Or have had friends or family who have? There was GideonWise and Charles' father. Beyond that I'm struggling - even Foxy's test came back negative if I recall.
...
Has GideonWise been seen since he went down with this?
I have had two friends from my rugby club. ..both of a certain age die from covid19
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
Vaccine and/or treatments - I cannot see any other exit from this.
I have come to this conclusion, and all those that think lets just hide away for another month and then life will get back to normal are going to be sorely disappointed.
There are a lot of optimists out there likely to be disappointed:
(Guardian) But only 3% of people told the ONS that their lives would never return to normal. People were asked how long it would take for their lives to return to normal. Here are the results.
Less than 3 months - 10%
4 to 6 months - 23%
7 to 12 months - 26%
More than 12 months - 20%
Never - 3%
Not sure - 18%
I am really concerned for how society will react. So far people on the whole have done as have been asked, with the belief in a few months we will have "flattened the curve" and we will be back to normal.
Now people don't want to send their kids back to school or return to work, in the belief another month or two and it will be all good. When in all likelihood, it isn't and you are just going to have to get on with it. At the moment, the government is all about nudging you back, you don't have to send your kid if you don't want to etc, but at some point everybody is just going to have to. The idea of only going back to work or school when zero risk isn't realistic and not sure how people are going to take it when there is more shove than nudge.
Agreed. One of the reasons I've been banging on about honesty vs spin.
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.....
So if Tuscany have a test - why the hullaballoo over the Uk one ?
Quantified accuracy - as far as I know, the Porton Down reference sample is pretty unique.
The point is that the Roche test (the "Uk one") has been actually proven to work.
This, though unfortunate, was blindingly obvious to anyone with two eyes who has driven around Belfast Harbour over the last 9 months. The prep work was there for additional check mechanisms and the Harbour Commission who own the land and the port were quite upfront about saying they could facilitate the situation whether it was 'internal' checks or now non single market import/export checks.
I suspect the reality will be a somewhat slack approach but we will see
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
...
Look at other samples too. How many people on PB have had it? Or have had friends or family who have? There was GideonWise and Charles' father. Beyond that I'm struggling - even Foxy's test came back negative if I recall.
...
Has GideonWise been seen since he went down with this?
He caught it on March 20th and was last active April 20th - so assuming he's OK but not posting as he seemed to be well on the mend in his later posts. Would be good to hear that from him though.
I often wonder what happened to Roger, who hasn't been active since December 2019.
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.....
So if Tuscany have a test - why the hullaballoo over the Uk one ?
The South Korea experience at the weekend would surely mean that the virus was much more infectious than that
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 ?
When will that headline appear in the Telegraph...... although they appear to moving that way.......the Mail and the Times? I don't suppose it ever will in the Sun or Express.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
Vaccine and/or treatments - I cannot see any other exit from this.
I have come to this conclusion, and all those that think lets just hide away for another month and then life will get back to normal are going to be sorely disappointed.
There are a lot of optimists out there likely to be disappointed:
(Guardian) But only 3% of people told the ONS that their lives would never return to normal. People were asked how long it would take for their lives to return to normal. Here are the results.
Less than 3 months - 10%
4 to 6 months - 23%
7 to 12 months - 26%
More than 12 months - 20%
Never - 3%
Not sure - 18%
I am really concerned for how society will react. So far people on the whole have done as have been asked, with the belief in a few months we will have "flattened the curve" and we will be back to normal.
Now people don't want to send their kids back to school or return to work, in the belief another month or two and it will be all good. When in all likelihood, it isn't and you are just going to have to get on with it. At the moment, the government is all about nudging you back, you don't have to send your kid if you don't want to etc, but at some point everybody is just going to have to. The idea of only going back to work or school when zero risk isn't realistic and not sure how people are going to take it when there is more shove than nudge.
Agreed. One of the reasons I've been banging on about honesty vs spin.
At some point over the summer Boris Johnson is going to have to deliver one of the great speeches. It needs to be right up there.
This, though unfortunate, was blindingly obvious to anyone with two eyes who has driven around Belfast Harbour over the last 9 months. The prep work was there for additional check mechanisms and the Harbour Commission who own the land and the port were quite upfront about saying they could facilitate the situation whether it was 'internal' checks or now non single market import/export checks.
I suspect the reality will be a somewhat slack approach but we will see
I wonder when Sir Jeffery Donaldson will raise it the House. I suspect that if Boris wasn't really flavour of the month with the DUP before, he won't be now.
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.....
So if Tuscany have a test - why the hullaballoo over the Uk one ?
Quantified accuracy - as far as I know, the Porton Down reference sample is pretty unique.
The point is that the Roche test (the "Uk one") has been actually proven to work.
Well it's certainly a place that has plenty of experience with chemical testing.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
Vaccine and/or treatments - I cannot see any other exit from this.
I have come to this conclusion, and all those that think lets just hide away for another month and then life will get back to normal are going to be sorely disappointed.
There are a lot of optimists out there likely to be disappointed:
(Guardian) But only 3% of people told the ONS that their lives would never return to normal. People were asked how long it would take for their lives to return to normal. Here are the results.
Less than 3 months - 10%
4 to 6 months - 23%
7 to 12 months - 26%
More than 12 months - 20%
Never - 3%
Not sure - 18%
The UK is in a rishi sunak induced denial. Wait until they find out...
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.....
So if Tuscany have a test - why the hullaballoo over the Uk one ?
Quantified accuracy - as far as I know, the Porton Down reference sample is pretty unique.
The point is that the Roche test (the "Uk one") has been actually proven to work.
Well it's certainly a place that has plenty of experience with chemical testing.
LOL - just imagine if the vaccine came from PD. You would have a moment, before you took the shot, wouldn't you?
The Starmer clip put out by Dorries is indeed revealing. Very revealing indeed. Very very revealing in fact.
I think Team SKS is going to be pretty satisfied with the way the week has gone so far. Very, very satisfied in fact.
As will the Nats - it would appear SKS poses absolutely zero threat to them in Scotland.
I would be surprised if even Theuniondivvie agrees with that. From the time I have spent in Scotland it is easy to figure that PM Corbyn would not have been a popular option for them. If, on the other hand, they believe that the Labour party is now more in the mould of Gordon Brown (who was very popular there) they might ( I know it is might), give the SNP a run for their money if they also think it is the best way to bash the Tories.
A blind deaf and dumb man would agree with that. Labour in Scotland is deader than a dodo and some poncy London Lawyer will not resurrect them for sure.
Yea, well I wouldn't expect someone as blinkered as you to agree: your ability to objectively assess an opponent is about as idiotic and self deluded as the thickest Bozo fanbois that come on here. Blair was a poncy London Lawyer (though he claims to be Scottish) and he did quite well against the Little Scotlanders of the SNP
moronic reply as expected from the thickest cretinous Little Englander on the site. Jog on loser.
The Treasury is wrong: we don't need hairshirt austerity Now is not the time for the Chancellor to lose his head by listening to the dire warnings of the mandarins
This, though unfortunate, was blindingly obvious to anyone with two eyes who has driven around Belfast Harbour over the last 9 months. The prep work was there for additional check mechanisms and the Harbour Commission who own the land and the port were quite upfront about saying they could facilitate the situation whether it was 'internal' checks or now non single market import/export checks.
I suspect the reality will be a somewhat slack approach but we will see
I wonder when Sir Jeffery Donaldson will raise it the House. I suspect that if Boris wasn't really flavour of the month with the DUP before, he won't be now.
Wont make a difference, i doubt the the DUP could get more than about 30 Conservatives to go with them.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I would guess less.
It's completely unscientific, but I know very, very few people who have had this.
Admittedly I have a fairly small social circle that skews heavily towards middle class office workers who can self-isolate better. But the only people I know who have had this are elderly and have caught it in hospital. I'd have expected at least one of my peers to have had this by now.
Look at other samples too. How many people on PB have had it? Or have had friends or family who have? There was GideonWise and Charles' father. Beyond that I'm struggling - even Foxy's test came back negative if I recall.
How many of our 650 MPs have caught it? Or premier league footballers? The sort of people who make the news when they catch it. Again, I know they're not using the Tube daily or working in a warehouse, but my very unscientific feel is that there hasn't been very widespread transmission so far.
The implication is that we've locked down for weeks, destroyed the economy, but haven't stamped out community transmission or achieved anything like a decent degree of herd immunity as Sweden has. We should have either locked down properly (fines for going outside) or taken the Swedish approach.
If it's much less than 4m it means the mortality rate is rather higher than thought.
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
Hope you are out of hospital and on the mend by now. Although there is a long way to go I think the worst is behind you in Spain for the time being. Best wishes
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I would guess less.
It's completely unscientific, but I know very, very few people who have had this.
Admittedly I have a fairly small social circle that skews heavily towards middle class office workers who can self-isolate better. But the only people I know who have had this are elderly and have caught it in hospital. I'd have expected at least one of my peers to have had this by now.
Look at other samples too. How many people on PB have had it? Or have had friends or family who have? There was GideonWise and Charles' father. Beyond that I'm struggling - even Foxy's test came back negative if I recall.
How many of our 650 MPs have caught it? Or premier league footballers? The sort of people who make the news when they catch it. Again, I know they're not using the Tube daily or working in a warehouse, but my very unscientific feel is that there hasn't been very widespread transmission so far.
The implication is that we've locked down for weeks, destroyed the economy, but haven't stamped out community transmission or achieved anything like a decent degree of herd immunity as Sweden has. We should have either locked down properly (fines for going outside) or taken the Swedish approach.
If it's much less than 4m it means the mortality rate is rather higher than thought.
Or the wrong people have caught the bug - the prevalence of deaths in care homes is a grim pointer to that potentially being the case.
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.
This, though unfortunate, was blindingly obvious to anyone with two eyes who has driven around Belfast Harbour over the last 9 months. The prep work was there for additional check mechanisms and the Harbour Commission who own the land and the port were quite upfront about saying they could facilitate the situation whether it was 'internal' checks or now non single market import/export checks.
I suspect the reality will be a somewhat slack approach but we will see
I wonder when Sir Jeffery Donaldson will raise it the House. I suspect that if Boris wasn't really flavour of the month with the DUP before, he won't be now.
The devil will be in the detail though.
What checks? Who’s doing them? Where? How? How often? Let’s not forget a check is not a control per se.
So, in one future extreme you have a shiny EU office in Belfast and dozens of keen EU customs types rigorously going through manifests and searching trucks and air freight with X rays at the only five points of entry, two sea and three airports, with a presupposition that everything coming in from GB is dutiable because it’s “in danger”, of going to ROI.
In the opposite extreme UK customs are just nodding through whatever (“yes that’s 5000 bottles of Aussie wine for Joe Bloggs Ltd in Ballymena. Check” - remember a check is not necessarily a control- I’m checked every time I cross the Severn Bridge via camera and counted, but I can cross how I like when like no restrictions), with a few EU types driving up from Dundalk for the day and having to double check loads of stuff scattered over NI businesses. Won’t that be an education for them.....
Now reality will probably lie along a spectrum between the two, depending on how the trade talks go.
Many of us here pointed out years ago the idiocy of the EU’s insistence on sequencing trade after divorce rather than all together, and here’s the practical issue that’s created.
2) Yes he is diminished and weaker since CV-19 and who could blame him; it sounds like a horrible disease especially if there are comorbidities or you are obese.
Depends if its permanent or not - he is likely to feel very different in the weeks and months ahead.
Yes of course. But I don't think the virus is waiting for him to recuperate. Hand over to someone (is that constitutionally possible?) and then come back when you are 100%. Although of course we know that he won't do that. But as I say I seem to be in the minority amongst Cons supporters to think we should have a 100% fit PM.
Did you vote Tory in 2019 than if you are a Cons supporter?
Of course I did you banana. Just like you I voted Cons in 2019 and Remain in 2016.
Good on you as long as you stick to that and don't switch to Starmer or the LDs now Corbyn's gone
We shall see what the offer is. I think Boris is a tosser and the floodgates have opened on the fiscal side so frankly, I will take a long hard look at the manifestos in 2024. As should any sentient being.
A fiscally loose, Leave party is not what you support so how will you vote?
I will vote Tory as usual
That party no longer exists. You can vote for Boris Johnson's Popular Front of Little England if you like.
You have to remember that HYUFD operates in a neck of the woods where Tories love people like Mark Francois, IDS and Pritti Patel and choose them as their candidates.
They were always there as part of the broad church but now they have taken over completely and don't have much time for other types of Tory. HYUFD spends as much time disagreeing with BigG and Philip Thompson as he does with the opposition.
There is a slight irony in that I don't think Boris is really one of them but just uses them as a vehicle for his own ends.
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?
It is all very confusing. One bloke goes on a nightout, 120+ people get it, one conference in Scotland, 50% of people get it, Germany Carnival event, 40%...at those sort of rates you would expect a huge proportion of a place like London to have caught it given the Tube, office working, high density living.
I agree, it doesn't really add up. Perhaps there really is something highly unusual about super-spreaders that we haven't discovered yet.
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.
There are now four surveys — I really should keep a note of where and when — that point to "roughly 10 x the known cases" being a good rule of thumb for the fraction of the population infected. Obviously better tests, more tests, and more recent tests will help to nail down the true scale of infection, but there's no reason to think that the iceberg is so large that we are anywhere near being through this pandemic. We would need to find about an order of magnitude yet more cases (100 x known) than there seems to have been to think we are approaching the end of the crisis.
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"
Done via modelling....Witty said from the actual sampling of people / antibody testing its about 10% in London, 4% nationally. Spain have done similar and they say 11% Madrid, 4% nationally.
My sense is that the iceberg is a unicorn.
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
I think it certainly isn't looking like the Ferguson thinking of mid February, where he talked about these kind of viruses having a 20-30% asymptotic rate.
Vaccine and/or treatments - I cannot see any other exit from this.
I have come to this conclusion, and all those that think lets just hide away for another month and then life will get back to normal are going to be sorely disappointed.
There are a lot of optimists out there likely to be disappointed:
(Guardian) But only 3% of people told the ONS that their lives would never return to normal. People were asked how long it would take for their lives to return to normal. Here are the results.
Less than 3 months - 10%
4 to 6 months - 23%
7 to 12 months - 26%
More than 12 months - 20%
Never - 3%
Not sure - 18%
I am really concerned for how society will react. So far people on the whole have done as have been asked, with the belief in a few months we will have "flattened the curve" and we will be back to normal.
Now people don't want to send their kids back to school or return to work, in the belief another month or two and it will be all good. When in all likelihood, it isn't and you are just going to have to get on with it. At the moment, the government is all about nudging you back, you don't have to send your kid if you don't want to etc, but at some point everybody is just going to have to. The idea of only going back to work or school when zero risk isn't realistic and not sure how people are going to take it when there is more shove than nudge.
The issue being that the risk is, at the moment, pretty much unknown. When a risk is known you can do your best to avoid it, when it isn't you can't. The precise moment that showed the government have not realised this was the moment when it chose to give schools different advice to the general public and to ignore this current lack of knowledge about risk.
It is presumed that children spread the virus. Outside of school, three year old children and older are expected to wear masks when outside the family bubble. The logical position would be to demand that this is followed in schools as well. Instead the plan appears to be based on a presumption that a school building has magical shielding properties (shades of too much Harry Potter).
If they had demanded face coverings and such in schools I suspect that more would have been okay with it, they didn't and that lack of consistency has led to a widespread belief that government are planning to use schools as the chosen place to spread the virus for the next wave. Given their previous advice that environments are safe when they are not, it is foolhardy to follow this current government advice at the present time, as it is likely to endanger students, staff and parents.
Two or three months will allow all to understand what the risk is and to plan to mitigate it. That's the logical position. Logical, that is, unless your plan is not to mitigate that risk.
Comments
I think I was one of the few that at the time of the Labour leadership election suggested that SKS would be more popular with SLab members than Nandy's, Philips' and Thornberry's kneejerk Nat bashing; he did that by not mentioning Scotland very much at all and exuding at least the possibility of competence. SLab members are of course not very representative of Scottish voters.
As far as Scotland goes now Starmer is in a bit of a cleft stick; he can either go on not saying much which doesn't change things, or more likely he'll be persuaded by the brights sparks of SLab to indulge in some SNPbad leavened by vague promises of more powers at some indeterminate point in the future, and at the pleasure of a Labour government.
Re. Corbyn, I don't think he was particularly toxic in Scotland, just seen as a bit crap and unlikely ever to be in a position to enact his vision however palatable or unpalatable it might have been.
https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/422733-2020-battle-brewing-inside-new-hampshire-over-whether-to-endorse-trump-early
Doucette, who served as a state co-chair of the 2016 Trump campaign, told the Concord Monitor it “just makes sense” for the state Republican Party to back President Trump, “who’s the head of our party.”
Republican Gov. Chris Sununu disagrees....
And from polling last month, the governor had a 58% net positive approval rating - against Trump's net negative 16% in the state - a 74% difference.
Can't think that will have improved much in the last couple of weeks.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cycling/52662769
Given it appears that high levels of testerone appear to provide a good defence against catching this, I would have thought they would all be safe as houses.
One incredibly sensible thing the UK government did was creating these ground truth sampling programme in mid January. I don't know what other governments did.
Classic Streisand effect.
Let's hope this one is wrong.....but it is a massive undertaking to do 400,000 blood tests....
Is the Roche test a blood sample?
You would expect some variability in how infective a particular individual was, in a particular situation, and clearly the events where an individual was most infective are the ones that are most noticed.
That doesn't make them representative of average infectiousness.
The difference between the Roche one and say the UK government own one (that is very accurate) is that is is fast (just a few seconds for the machine to process it) and able to be mass produced. However, it still requires an special bit of kit in a lab to process it.
Is the Roche test a blood test....I guess it is if it's got that kind of reliability....
As of right now I estimate that between 4m and 5m people in the UK have been infected with coronavirus - and I would rather sell the 4 than buy the 5.
If that wasn't enough to turn things around, what was?
Unless we know what exact test the Italian study used, it is hard to say for certain.
We do know that the UK Porton Down lab test is accurate (but very slow).
Theoretically (I suppose) they could keep on getting it and passing it on without ever developing symptoms, but that also seems to fly in the face of all the evidence we have.
Much more likely the Italian study is flawed in some way.
The issue with test specificity/sensitivity is not so much the sample source* for these antibody test, as what is done with the sample.
*Yes, this is a massive issue for the swab tests for current infection
For example, if you're looking for IgA antibodies, which are preferentially expressed in the mucous membrane. But most, yes.
Also the ToB is only a 2.HC category race and is not on the World Tour so nobody gives a fuck.
That is why the government were so keen on them. They could mail out 100,000s of them dead easy.
The Roche test isn't this at all, and will require been sent to a lab. I believe initially they will be for front line healthcare professionals, but I guess after that you go to somewhere like Boots.
The ventilator was undergoing clinical trials, so clearly the skills were there.
It's completely unscientific, but I know very, very few people who have had this.
Admittedly I have a fairly small social circle that skews heavily towards middle class office workers who can self-isolate better. But the only people I know who have had this are elderly and have caught it in hospital. I'd have expected at least one of my peers to have had this by now.
Look at other samples too. How many people on PB have had it? Or have had friends or family who have? There was GideonWise and Charles' father. Beyond that I'm struggling - even Foxy's test came back negative if I recall.
How many of our 650 MPs have caught it? Or premier league footballers? The sort of people who make the news when they catch it. Again, I know they're not using the Tube daily or working in a warehouse, but my very unscientific feel is that there hasn't been very widespread transmission so far.
The implication is that we've locked down for weeks, destroyed the economy, but haven't stamped out community transmission or achieved anything like a decent degree of herd immunity as Sweden has. We should have either locked down properly (fines for going outside) or taken the Swedish approach.
In fact if PPE and testing had been run in a similar manner, we would be in a hell of a lot better position. The idea of not sticking all your eggs in one basket and all that.
Blimey. It's a guess then.
The most extreme example is the Cepheid infection test:
https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/status/1260835766135119872
Amplify a lot, and you have to be extremely careful about contamination, and false results; amplify less, and you might not detect anything.
(Guardian) But only 3% of people told the ONS that their lives would never return to normal. People were asked how long it would take for their lives to return to normal. Here are the results.
Less than 3 months - 10%
4 to 6 months - 23%
7 to 12 months - 26%
More than 12 months - 20%
Never - 3%
Not sure - 18%
https://www.forbes.com/sites/giacomotognini/2020/05/07/can-the-us-learn-from-italy-where-coronavirus-antibody-test-makers-are-fighting-for-a-new-market/amp/
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.
Now people don't want to send their kids back to school or return to work, in the belief another month or two and it will be all good. When in all likelihood, it isn't and you are just going to have to get on with it. At the moment, the government is all about nudging you back, you don't have to send your kid if you don't want to etc, but at some point everybody is just going to have to. The idea of only going back to work or school when zero risk isn't realistic and not sure how people are going to take it when there is more shove than nudge.
One of the reasons I've been banging on about honesty vs spin.
The point is that the Roche test (the "Uk one") has been actually proven to work.
I suspect the reality will be a somewhat slack approach but we will see
https://twitter.com/Thomas_Sparrow/status/1260860884110454786?s=20
I often wonder what happened to Roger, who hasn't been active since December 2019.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQIh_26HtUw
I don't suppose it ever will in the Sun or Express.
Now is not the time for the Chancellor to lose his head by listening to the dire warnings of the mandarins
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2020/05/13/treasury-wrong-dont-need-hairshirt-austerity/
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.
Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.
What checks? Who’s doing them? Where? How? How often? Let’s not forget a check is not a control per se.
So, in one future extreme you have a shiny EU office in Belfast and dozens of keen EU customs types rigorously going through manifests and searching trucks and air freight with X rays at the only five points of entry, two sea and three airports, with a presupposition that everything coming in from GB is dutiable because it’s “in danger”, of going to ROI.
In the opposite extreme UK customs are just nodding through whatever (“yes that’s 5000 bottles of Aussie wine for Joe Bloggs Ltd in Ballymena. Check” - remember a check is not necessarily a control- I’m checked every time I cross the Severn Bridge via camera and counted, but I can cross how I like when like no restrictions), with a few EU types driving up from Dundalk for the day and having to double check loads of stuff scattered over NI businesses. Won’t that be an education for them.....
Now reality will probably lie along a spectrum between the two, depending on how the trade talks go.
Many of us here pointed out years ago the idiocy of the EU’s insistence on sequencing trade after divorce rather than all together, and here’s the practical issue that’s created.
They were always there as part of the broad church but now they have taken over completely and don't have much time for other types of Tory. HYUFD spends as much time disagreeing with BigG and Philip Thompson as he does with the opposition.
There is a slight irony in that I don't think Boris is really one of them but just uses them as a vehicle for his own ends.
Surely not, Boris, being dishonest? I'm shocked to the core.
It is presumed that children spread the virus. Outside of school, three year old children and older are expected to wear masks when outside the family bubble. The logical position would be to demand that this is followed in schools as well. Instead the plan appears to be based on a presumption that a school building has magical shielding properties (shades of too much Harry Potter).
If they had demanded face coverings and such in schools I suspect that more would have been okay with it, they didn't and that lack of consistency has led to a widespread belief that government are planning to use schools as the chosen place to spread the virus for the next wave. Given their previous advice that environments are safe when they are not, it is foolhardy to follow this current government advice at the present time, as it is likely to endanger students, staff and parents.
Two or three months will allow all to understand what the risk is and to plan to mitigate it. That's the logical position. Logical, that is, unless your plan is not to mitigate that risk.