Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next month it’ll be the 50th anniversary of GE1970 – the ONLY

SystemSystem Posts: 8,258
edited May 14 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Next month it’ll be the 50th anniversary of GE1970 – the ONLY election in modern times when a party with a working majority lost to another with a working majority

Next month we will see the 50th anniversary of the most extraordinary general election of modern times – 1970 when Edward Heath led the Tories to victory. His party came to power with a working majority beating Harold Wilson Labour which also had a working majority.

Read the full story here


«13456

Comments

  • rubricrubric Posts: 5
    First?! Definitely the 1st GE of my life. Also, the 1st UK exit poll (in Gravesend)
  • MrEdMrEd Posts: 187
    Second like SKS? BoJo? Trump? Biden?
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 1,958
    Those who don't want to know the result of the 1970 election should look away now. Highlights will follow this broadcast.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,729
    Vote for Ted, get an extra day in bed.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,162
    Thanks to PB, we are much closer to knowing that the virus is highly infectious and not very dangerous, or barely infectious and rather dangerous.

    Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909

    Thanks to PB, we are much closer to knowing that the virus is highly infectious and not very dangerous, or barely infectious and rather dangerous.

    Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.

    In 30 mins we should have some new data to make things even less clear.
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    edited May 14
    Quite nice to see the year four years before I was born described as "modern times"

    Enoch was right... about hypothetical questions





  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,310
    Looks like it was a big upset on the polling front with Wilson well ahead !
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837
    Nadine Dorries, Maria Caulfield & Lucy Allan trending on Twitter politics.

    Kwality work, ladies.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 10,386
    This was the election at which my father - recently promoted to management - went full Uncle Tom and voted Conservative.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 15,656

    Thanks to PB, we are much closer to knowing that the virus is highly infectious and not very dangerous, or barely infectious and rather dangerous.

    Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.

    That basically sums up medical knowledge fairly well!

    The Roche antibody test seems accurate enough for community testing in terms of sensitivity and specificity.

    I would suggest testing NHS and Care home staff, and a population random sample as the first priority.
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,145

    Thanks to PB, we are much closer to knowing that the virus is highly infectious and not very dangerous, or barely infectious and rather dangerous.

    Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.

    In 30 mins we should have some new data to make things even less clear.
    Confused? you may be

    Poorer? you will be

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    Foxy said:

    Thanks to PB, we are much closer to knowing that the virus is highly infectious and not very dangerous, or barely infectious and rather dangerous.

    Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.

    That basically sums up medical knowledge fairly well!

    The Roche antibody test seems accurate enough for community testing in terms of sensitivity and specificity.

    I would suggest testing NHS and Care home staff, and a population random sample as the first priority.
    From what I read, I believe this is the plan.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,729
    Pulpstar said:

    Looks like it was a big upset on the polling front with Wilson well ahead !

  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    Mop your brow @Alistair, 8th April is no longer peak Covid deaths in Sweden
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 10,386
    isam said:

    Quite nice to see the year four years before I was born described as "modern times"

    Enoch was right... about hypothetical questions


    He looks a bit like David Niven there. Odd thought.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 14,669

    Thanks to PB, we are much closer to knowing that the virus is highly infectious and not very dangerous, or barely infectious and rather dangerous.

    Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.

    In 30 mins we should have some new data to make things even less clear.
    We will either be carrying out/sending out/sending to America/having the capacity/not having the capacity (see sending to America) tests

    We will either be using a comparison slide or its no longer relevant to have a comparison slide because you cant sensibly compare even though we have been for 7 weeks

    That much is clear

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,162

    Thanks to PB, we are much closer to knowing that the virus is highly infectious and not very dangerous, or barely infectious and rather dangerous.

    Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.

    In 30 mins we should have some new data to make things even less clear.
    Good to hear. Clarity is overrated.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,310

    Thanks to PB, we are much closer to knowing that the virus is highly infectious and not very dangerous, or barely infectious and rather dangerous.

    Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.

    In 30 mins we should have some new data to make things even less clear.
    Confused? you may be

    Poorer? you will be

    I don't think you'll be too far wrong on the economic implications of all this.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    Pulpstar said:

    BigRich said:

    nichomar said:

    tyson said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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"

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13528

    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.


  • gettingbettergettingbetter Posts: 260
    I remember that election with mixed feelings. Happy that Ted Heath had won but more sad because our dog had died recently.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,542
    Scott_xP said:
    Surely not, Boris lying? Perish the thought.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 15,656

    Foxy said:

    Thanks to PB, we are much closer to knowing that the virus is highly infectious and not very dangerous, or barely infectious and rather dangerous.

    Or it could be moderately infectious and moderately dangerous.

    That basically sums up medical knowledge fairly well!

    The Roche antibody test seems accurate enough for community testing in terms of sensitivity and specificity.

    I would suggest testing NHS and Care home staff, and a population random sample as the first priority.
    From what I read, I believe this is the plan.
    There are times that even this government gets things right!
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 26,149
    About Boris’s broadcast, from CNN:

    Sources inside Downing Street have told CNN that Johnson himself thought the message was confusing. "Filming was a total nightmare. He was stopping and starting, asking to change bits, complaining about the length, saying it was all too complex," said one government source who was not permitted to speak on the record.
  • OllyTOllyT Posts: 3,542
    kinabalu said:

    This was the election at which my father - recently promoted to management - went full Uncle Tom and voted Conservative.

    I was in my first year of uni and voted by post, I can still see my 19-year old self popping the envelope into the pillar box on a gloriously sunny day. The one and only time I have voted Conservative at a GE.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    Pulpstar said:

    Looks like it was a big upset on the polling front with Wilson well ahead !

    Shadsy's grandad had lengthened the Conservatives from 11/10 out to 6/1 or longer during the campaign.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230
    NHS England numbers out - 207
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230
    image

    image
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 71,989
    Which is why Starmer at best will get a hung parliament and like Cameron in 2010 need the LDs to form a government and maybe the SNP too
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    I was regulaly checking the widipidia page fro the latest states from Sweden:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Sweden

    But about a week ago, whoever was updating them seems to have stooped doing so. I can find the numbers on a Swedish government site, most of witch is also available in English. but suspect that many people, including a lot of journalists.

    how easy/difficult is it to update a Wikipedia page? can anybody volatier, or do i need to be varifide first? being able to spell would be helpful but if its just copying numbers form one table to anther is there any reason I don't start doing it?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 2,327
    IanB2 said:

    About Boris’s broadcast, from CNN:

    Sources inside Downing Street have told CNN that Johnson himself thought the message was confusing. "Filming was a total nightmare. He was stopping and starting, asking to change bits, complaining about the length, saying it was all too complex," said one government source who was not permitted to speak on the record.

    It confirms the PB BoZo Fanbois comment that "only journalists could be confused by it"...
  • ukpaulukpaul Posts: 584
    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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"

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13528

    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.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    "Edward Argar, the health minister, said on Thursday no tests had been purchased by the UK as the government was still in discussions with Roche about acquiring them."

    I know the UK government got burned by the dodgy Chinese kits and those companies demanding money upfront, but Roche are legit well known and respected outfit. Also, you would have thought they could have placed ordered, conditional on what Roche said being true.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898
    My general feeling is that politics, and political allegiance, is more volatile now than then, and so there exists greater potential for larger swings and therefore a change from one majority government to another.

    Set against that it's very unlikely that if one of the parties has a seat lead of only 42, as Heath in 1970, that they will have a working majority, because there are so many MPs for other parties.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    edited May 14
    Official UK numbers...highest daily test numbers yet. Interesting, although people tested up a bit from previous days, it is ability to test people multiple times that is the real difference.

  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    "All this points to the huge challenge facing Starmer. whenever the next election takes place."

    Without a significant chunk of Scottish MPs he has zero chance.

    Hence he has zero chance on current trajectory - his only shot is a rainbow coalition (from hell).
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    edited May 14
    126k tests yesterday.

    Just 2,500 in Scotland.

    We don't hear about test volumes so much these days.
  • YokesYokes Posts: 174
    That's a very long headline.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316

    "Edward Argar, the health minister, said on Thursday no tests had been purchased by the UK as the government was still in discussions with Roche about acquiring them."

    I know the UK government got burned by the dodgy Chinese kits and those companies demanding money upfront, but Roche are legit well known and respected outfit. Also, you would have thought they could have placed ordered, conditional on what Roche said being true.

    Blimey.
    So not only did we take a week longer to approve the test than did others, we haven't bothered to order any in advance.

    In the broadest sense, this government does not seem to value timely intelligence.
    Which is enormously unintelligent of them.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 21,316
    edited May 14
    A rare piece of good news (in the relatively short term, at least). The Sunderland plant seems safe.

    Nissan to reduce capacity by 20% and close a European plant:
    https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Automobiles/Nissan-to-reduce-capacity-by-20-and-close-a-European-plant
    ...Nissan will take on production of Renault vehicles in the U.K. The British facilities, which can make more than 500,000 vehicles a year, turned out around 320,000 last fiscal year.

    Similar efforts are in the works in South America and Southeast Asia. There are plans to make Renault vehicles at Nissan facilities in Brazil, an export hub for the Japanese automaker. In Southeast Asia, Nissan and Mitsubishi will ramp up their collaboration. Mitsubishi will take on production of Nissan vehicles in Indonesia and elsewhere....
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    edited May 14
    Nigelb said:

    "Edward Argar, the health minister, said on Thursday no tests had been purchased by the UK as the government was still in discussions with Roche about acquiring them."

    I know the UK government got burned by the dodgy Chinese kits and those companies demanding money upfront, but Roche are legit well known and respected outfit. Also, you would have thought they could have placed ordered, conditional on what Roche said being true.

    Blimey.
    So not only did we take a week longer to approve the test than did others, we haven't bothered to order any in advance.

    In the broadest sense, this government does not seem to value timely intelligence.
    Which is enormously unintelligent of them.
    I wouldn't criticise the government over length taken to validate. I think given previous experiences, getting it right seems very sensible.

    Just because some other European countries or US have said OK, the US for instance also said OK to some rapid tests that don't do what they claim and a number of other European countries have got burned by not properly checking despite giving them the green light.

    In terms of validation, I think the UK approach has been very sensible. Without proper checks and balances on those antibody tests they bought initially, we probably would now be talking about a massive scandal of false test results.

    Not doing a deal in the meantime, now that seems dumb.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,310

    Official UK numbers...highest daily test numbers yet. Interesting, although people tested up a bit from previous days, it is ability to test people multiple times that is the real difference.

    Has @Johnlilburne had his results back yet ?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    TGOHF666 said:

    126k tests yesterday.

    Just 2,500 in Scotland.

    We don't hear about test volumes so much these days.

    And in Wales? Are they managing to do more than a couple of shepherds a day yet?
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    ukpaul said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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"

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13528

    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.
    Exept:

    Sweden has kept its schools open throughout, without masks, and has not had problems, with kids or parents.

    Finland and Denmark, who probably pay more attention to Sweden than most of the rest of the would are now following Sweden and reopening Schools.

    Its very hard to reopen the economy and have parents go back to work if kids are still at home.

    That sead, no parent should ever be forced to sent there kids to a school, pandemic or not.
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    edited May 14
    Sweden Covid cases by age

    Cases %
    under 10 133 0.48
    10-19 310 1.11
    20-29 2361 8.46
    30-39 3110 11.15
    40-49 3861 13.84
    50-59 4929 17.66
    60-69 3464 12.41
    70-79 3327 11.92
    80-89 4146 14.86
    90+ 2262 8.11

    Norway

    Cases %
    under 10 136 1.66
    10-19 443 5.42
    20-29 1280 15.66
    30-39 1356 16.59
    40-49 1460 17.86
    50-59 1559 19.07
    60-69 874 10.69
    70-79 583 7.13
    80-89 367 4.49
    90+ 117 1.43


  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 3,197
    Yokes said:

    That's a very long headline.

    Very odd timing as well since the anniversary is next month, and probably the replay too.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    isam said:

    Sweden Covid cases by age

    Cases %
    under 10 133 0.48
    10-19 310 1.11
    20-29 2361 8.46
    30-39 3110 11.15
    40-49 3861 13.84
    50-59 4929 17.66
    60-69 3464 12.41
    70-79 3327 11.92
    80-89 4146 14.86
    90+ 2262 8.11

    Norway

    Cases %
    under 10 136 1.66
    10-19 443 5.42
    20-29 1280 15.66
    30-39 1356 16.59
    40-49 1460 17.86
    50-59 1559 19.07
    60-69 874 10.69
    70-79 583 7.13
    80-89 367 4.49
    90+ 117 1.43


    So Sweden have done a very bad job of keeping it away from oldies.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230
    BigRich said:

    ukpaul said:

    FPT

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    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"

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13528

    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.
    Exept:

    Sweden has kept its schools open throughout, without masks, and has not had problems, with kids or parents.

    Finland and Denmark, who probably pay more attention to Sweden than most of the rest of the would are now following Sweden and reopening Schools.

    Its very hard to reopen the economy and have parents go back to work if kids are still at home.

    That sead, no parent should ever be forced to sent there kids to a school, pandemic or not.
    I suggest you talk to some people in social work. There are a non-trivial number of children for whom, school is the safest (and maybe best) thing in their lives. In the middle of the COVID19 epidemic, at that.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 1,572

    Pulpstar said:

    Looks like it was a big upset on the polling front with Wilson well ahead !

    Shadsy's grandad had lengthened the Conservatives from 11/10 out to 6/1 or longer during the campaign.
    I won 10p (worth £1.56 now) in the 1970 election backing the Tories against the form book with my economics teacher. And he paid up.

    And I attended my first election hustings in the old Southgate constituency, a Tory stronghold where the MP was Anthony Berry of the Daily Telegraph family who was later murdered by the IRA.

    The Labour candidate said that one day Southgate would return a Labour MP. Everyone laughed at the impossible prospect. I thought of that on Portillo night, and now it is a Labour held marginal (now Enfield Southgate).
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    edited May 14
    isam said:

    Sweden Covid cases by age

    Cases %
    under 10 133 0.48
    10-19 310 1.11
    20-29 2361 8.46
    30-39 3110 11.15
    40-49 3861 13.84
    50-59 4929 17.66
    60-69 3464 12.41
    70-79 3327 11.92
    80-89 4146 14.86
    90+ 2262 8.11

    Norway

    Cases %
    under 10 136 1.66
    10-19 443 5.42
    20-29 1280 15.66
    30-39 1356 16.59
    40-49 1460 17.86
    50-59 1559 19.07
    60-69 874 10.69
    70-79 583 7.13
    80-89 367 4.49
    90+ 117 1.43


    Denmark

    Cases %
    under 10 227 2.13
    10-19 454 4.26
    20-29 1443 13.53
    30-39 1495 14.02
    40-49 1918 17.98
    50-59 1976 18.52
    60-69 1257 11.78
    70-79 927 8.69
    80-89 743 6.97
    90+ 227 2.13
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    "We estimate that 0.27% of people not in care homes, hospitals or other institutional settings in England would test positive for COVID-19 from 27 April to 10 May 2020. "

    Hardly worth the shutdown is it ?
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 15,656

    isam said:

    Sweden Covid cases by age

    Cases %
    under 10 133 0.48
    10-19 310 1.11
    20-29 2361 8.46
    30-39 3110 11.15
    40-49 3861 13.84
    50-59 4929 17.66
    60-69 3464 12.41
    70-79 3327 11.92
    80-89 4146 14.86
    90+ 2262 8.11

    Norway

    Cases %
    under 10 136 1.66
    10-19 443 5.42
    20-29 1280 15.66
    30-39 1356 16.59
    40-49 1460 17.86
    50-59 1559 19.07
    60-69 874 10.69
    70-79 583 7.13
    80-89 367 4.49
    90+ 117 1.43


    So Sweden have done a very bad job of keeping it away from oldies.
    And neither have they had better herd immunity in the young*

    *depends a lot on access to testing between the two countries how accurate the percentages are.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    isam said:

    Sweden Covid cases by age

    Cases %
    under 10 133 0.48
    10-19 310 1.11
    20-29 2361 8.46
    30-39 3110 11.15
    40-49 3861 13.84
    50-59 4929 17.66
    60-69 3464 12.41
    70-79 3327 11.92
    80-89 4146 14.86
    90+ 2262 8.11

    Norway

    Cases %
    under 10 136 1.66
    10-19 443 5.42
    20-29 1280 15.66
    30-39 1356 16.59
    40-49 1460 17.86
    50-59 1559 19.07
    60-69 874 10.69
    70-79 583 7.13
    80-89 367 4.49
    90+ 117 1.43


    Thanks Isam,

    It is also possible that more very young Swedes have had it but had very minor symptoms or non at all and therefor where not tested.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898

    "Edward Argar, the health minister, said on Thursday no tests had been purchased by the UK as the government was still in discussions with Roche about acquiring them."

    I know the UK government got burned by the dodgy Chinese kits and those companies demanding money upfront, but Roche are legit well known and respected outfit. Also, you would have thought they could have placed ordered, conditional on what Roche said being true.

    As far as I recall everyone on here who expressed an opinion didn't mind that we'd bought tests that didn't work - we were all glad that they'd tested them and had tried to get hold of them.

    Time is at a premium now. It's worth risking some money for.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/dundee/1318005/exclusive-29000-coronavirus-test-results-in-scotland-unaccounted-for/

    The 30,000 swabs, taken since mid-April, are still being processed in a “data exchange” between the UK Government and Scottish Government.

    It means Scotland’s confirmed figure of 13,929 is likely to be significantly higher and also casts doubt on recent regional figures.
  • AndrewAndrew Posts: 2,766
    edited May 14
    TGOHF666 said:

    126k tests yesterday.

    Highest rate per capita in the world now. It's more about improving efficiency and using that capacity a bit more intelligently now, but at least we have the ability to swamp any particular locale or demographic with tests when needed.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.

    Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.

    -----

    There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599
    TGOHF666 said:

    "We estimate that 0.27% of people not in care homes, hospitals or other institutional settings in England would test positive for COVID-19 from 27 April to 10 May 2020. "

    Hardly worth the shutdown is it ?
    umm, if we estimate the UK population 'not in care homes hospitals or other instinctual setting' at 60,000,000. the 0.27% would equate to 162,000.

    how long is a person infected for? if its 5 days then just 32,000 a day infected. does that sound right?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898
    TGOHF666 said:

    "We estimate that 0.27% of people not in care homes, hospitals or other institutional settings in England would test positive for COVID-19 from 27 April to 10 May 2020. "

    Hardly worth the shutdown is it ?
    That's from a period a month after the shutdown started - would possibly have been in the range 4-16% without the shutdown.

    It's evidence the shutdown worked you monumental eejit.
  • Andy_CookeAndy_Cooke Posts: 2,105
    BigRich said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BigRich said:

    nichomar said:

    tyson said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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"

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13528

    I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
    If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
    That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
    If you want depressing...then read below....

    I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....

    I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.

    Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
    Figures from Spain show only 5% overall with antibodies. In Alicante province it’s 2.7
    There is something we don't understand about this virus -

    It seems highly infectious, yet some people in persistent close proximity fail to catch it. Or at least get symptoms.

    The immune/exposed number is all over the place - Sweden claiming 26% in Stockholm, and now the numbers above from Tuscany.

    The fatality estimates, from reputable scientists, are all over the place.

    I wonder if an issue is the capability of the antibody tests being used?
    I think it is a reflection of Who has had the virus, more than how many,

    Looking at numbers from Sweden and elsewhere, its possible that if a million people under 18 get it then maybe 5 or 6 will die, if just 1,000 over 80 get the virus then perhpase 300-350 die.

    The 5 or 6 kids are sad, but would barley be noticed in the daily death announcement, but 1 million people would move the nation noticeably towards 'Hurd immunity' however: 350 over 80s would almost double the daily total, but the 1,000 makes no difference to Hurd immunity.

    Keeping schools open relay is key, and is probably why Denmark and Finland have now copied Sweden in opening their schools.
    It's not just about deaths, do possible long term survivors complications not worry you just a bit ?
    Yes, all suffering consernes me.

    I support the approach of Sweden, because it seems to be a level headed approach that will minimise total suffering in the long term, and is not contingent on 'and then we discover a vaccine and its all over' in the next couple of months. it maintains basic civil liberty/freedoms, and of less importance but not irreverent will not totally 'trash' the economy.

    As for long term damage to survivors, yes that is also a concern, but does not change my conclusion. I would be very intested in numbers affected, and how badly.

    From what I can see, in Sweden roughly 3,000 dead, 1,500 have been in ICU 500, now dead, 500, recovered and 500, still in ICU.

    I would have thought that the 500 recovered from ICU are the most lickly to be badly affected, 500 is a 1/6th of the 3,000 dead, therefor my big concern is with the 3,000 dead. There will be some others as well, but hard to estimate how many.


    It would be nice to think we had a ready-made alternative, but:

    1 - Sweden's economy will be/is almost as much in the shitter from all of this as its neighbouring countries. It's probably dampened - slightly - the fall, but at the cost of ensuring the return back will be dampened as well. It's the virus and its effects that do the vast majority of the economic damage.

    2 - The Swedish option is not on the cards for the UK - or England, anyway. Population densities and connectivity are far, far higher, so the same strategy would cause a big increase in deaths here. Looking at Sweden compared to its neighbouring countries (with similar population densities, connectivity, economic structure, and social and cultural traits) looks like it gives 4x to 8x as many deaths as a straightforward lockdown.

    3 - There are indications (from the coronaviruses found in the common cold) that illness-recovery-fuelled immunity degrades quite quickly. If they do get immunity (which isn't proven, but I personally believe that indications are that you do get at least limited immunity from recovering), it might be effectively gone in 3-6 months.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052

    TGOHF666 said:

    "We estimate that 0.27% of people not in care homes, hospitals or other institutional settings in England would test positive for COVID-19 from 27 April to 10 May 2020. "

    Hardly worth the shutdown is it ?
    That's from a period a month after the shutdown started - would possibly have been in the range 4-16% without the shutdown.

    It's evidence the shutdown worked you monumental eejit.
    Sweden would suggest different.
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 1,353
    The rise of third parties has made it harder for there be to a switch from Con maj to Lab maj.

    It is a massive mountain to climb.

    It looks like on UNS they need to take Glasgow NW (maj 8,359) to get a majority of 1 but that include 17 seats in Scotland. If you take those out then it gets you to Derbyshire NE (maj 12,876). It would also include gaining seats like Macclesfield, Bromley and Hexham that they didn't take in the Blair years.

    There is a lot of focus on Labour's Scotland problem but they also have a massive issue with the Midlands. Look at seats like Staffordshire Moorlands which had a 10,000 Labour majority in 1997 and now has a 16,000 Conservative majority or North Warks which has gone from 15,000 Lab maj to 18,000 Con maj


  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    TGOHF666 said:

    "We estimate that 0.27% of people not in care homes, hospitals or other institutional settings in England would test positive for COVID-19 from 27 April to 10 May 2020. "

    Hardly worth the shutdown is it ?
    Obviously that depends what the percentage was before the shutdown and the what the percentage would have been if there hadn't been a shutdown. This result gives not the slightest indication of either of those figures.

    The percentage is very similar to that of the pilot study a few days ago.

    I think what is new is the finding that there was no statistically significant variation with age of the percentage infected. Obviously with subsamples the confidence interval is large, but the data give no hint of an increase with age:
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england14may2020
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    isam said:

    isam said:

    Sweden Covid cases by age

    Cases %
    under 10 133 0.48
    10-19 310 1.11
    20-29 2361 8.46
    30-39 3110 11.15
    40-49 3861 13.84
    50-59 4929 17.66
    60-69 3464 12.41
    70-79 3327 11.92
    80-89 4146 14.86
    90+ 2262 8.11

    Norway

    Cases %
    under 10 136 1.66
    10-19 443 5.42
    20-29 1280 15.66
    30-39 1356 16.59
    40-49 1460 17.86
    50-59 1559 19.07
    60-69 874 10.69
    70-79 583 7.13
    80-89 367 4.49
    90+ 117 1.43


    Denmark

    Cases %
    under 10 227 2.13
    10-19 454 4.26
    20-29 1443 13.53
    30-39 1495 14.02
    40-49 1918 17.98
    50-59 1976 18.52
    60-69 1257 11.78
    70-79 927 8.69
    80-89 743 6.97
    90+ 227 2.13
    Not many people under 60 die from Covid

    47.3% of Covid cases in Sweden were 60+
    23.7% in Norway
    29.57 in Denmark

    If we make it 70+, it's

    34.89% Sweden
    13.05% Denmark
    17.78% Norway



  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 19,837
    TGOHF666 said:

    126k tests yesterday.

    Just 2,500 in Scotland.

    We don't hear about test volumes so much these days.

    You're consistent, I'll give you that.

    'On 13 May there were:

    4,009 tests carried out by NHS Scotland in hospitals, care homes or the community, making a total of 111,261 COVID-19 tests through NHS labs to date.
    In addition, there were 1,820 drive through and mobile tests carried out by the Regional Testing Centres in Scotland bringing the total to 32,528 tests to date.'

    https://tinyurl.com/yagk44uc

  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,310
    edited May 14
    Nowhere near herd immunity, but too high for track and trace. Enough cases to seed an explosion if everything opens up, but a tricky number to completely crush the virus.

    It's a right old pickle isn't it ?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898

    Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.

    Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.

    -----

    There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.

    Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.

    I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
  • isamisam Posts: 32,009
    Sweden 3528
    Deaths %
    under 10 1 0.03

    20-29 9 0.26
    30-39 13 0.37
    40-49 33 0.94
    50-59 110 3.12
    60-69 253 7.17
    70-79 783 22.19
    80-89 1453 41.18
    90+ 873 24.74

  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,303

    TGOHF666 said:

    126k tests yesterday.

    Just 2,500 in Scotland.

    We don't hear about test volumes so much these days.

    And in Wales? Are they managing to do more than a couple of shepherds a day yet?
    Scotland still running at 70% of English death rate and similar to Wales , keep up the good work.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    edited May 14

    Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.

    Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.

    -----

    There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.

    Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.

    I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
    Witty said ~4% nationally have had it. We can do some rough maths on that. It more than 1%....and most definitely not talking these 0.3-0.4% that some have suggested. Now how much of that is because of failures to deal with care homes, now much is down to wrong general advice on when people should be admitted to hospital, etc.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898
    TGOHF666 said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    "We estimate that 0.27% of people not in care homes, hospitals or other institutional settings in England would test positive for COVID-19 from 27 April to 10 May 2020. "

    Hardly worth the shutdown is it ?
    That's from a period a month after the shutdown started - would possibly have been in the range 4-16% without the shutdown.

    It's evidence the shutdown worked you monumental eejit.
    Sweden would suggest different.
    See @Andy_Cooke in the post directly before yours. It doesn't.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 28,303
    TGOHF666 said:

    https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/dundee/1318005/exclusive-29000-coronavirus-test-results-in-scotland-unaccounted-for/

    The 30,000 swabs, taken since mid-April, are still being processed in a “data exchange” between the UK Government and Scottish Government.

    It means Scotland’s confirmed figure of 13,929 is likely to be significantly higher and also casts doubt on recent regional figures.

    Getting ever more desperate Harry
  • Nigelb said:

    "Edward Argar, the health minister, said on Thursday no tests had been purchased by the UK as the government was still in discussions with Roche about acquiring them."

    I know the UK government got burned by the dodgy Chinese kits and those companies demanding money upfront, but Roche are legit well known and respected outfit. Also, you would have thought they could have placed ordered, conditional on what Roche said being true.

    Blimey.
    So not only did we take a week longer to approve the test than did others, we haven't bothered to order any in advance.

    In the broadest sense, this government does not seem to value timely intelligence.
    Which is enormously unintelligent of them.
    I wouldn't criticise the government over length taken to validate. I think given previous experiences, getting it right seems very sensible.

    Just because some other European countries or US have said OK, the US for instance also said OK to some rapid tests that don't do what they claim and a number of other European countries have got burned by not properly checking despite giving them the green light.

    In terms of validation, I think the UK approach has been very sensible. Without proper checks and balances on those antibody tests they bought initially, we probably would now be talking about a massive scandal of false test results.

    Not doing a deal in the meantime, now that seems dumb.
    A number of PB.com commenters have welcomed the UKG's decision to decline the invitation to participate in the EU procurement schemes for CV related supplies and have ridiculed those schemes as not 'producing' or 'delivering' anything.

    The day of approval of the Elecsys tests was May 4th in Germany, The same day saw German SoH Jens Spahn attend the opening of the only production line in Penzberg/Bavaria.

    https://www.roche.de/medien/meldungen/bundesgesundheitsminister-spahn-und-bayerischer-ministerpraesident-soeder-besuchen-roche-5138.html

    I posted a comment pointing out this fact on the following day. The worldwide demand for this test (and the COBA machines required to evaluate the samples) outstrips the supply by some measure.
    Fervent PC.com Brexiteers will probably still defend UKG's decision for some reasons.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052
    malcolmg said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    https://www.thecourier.co.uk/fp/news/local/dundee/1318005/exclusive-29000-coronavirus-test-results-in-scotland-unaccounted-for/

    The 30,000 swabs, taken since mid-April, are still being processed in a “data exchange” between the UK Government and Scottish Government.

    It means Scotland’s confirmed figure of 13,929 is likely to be significantly higher and also casts doubt on recent regional figures.

    Getting ever more desperate Harry
    Not really - am going for 18 holes of golf shortly.

    Unlike the timrous cowering beasties up there.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430
    Chris said:

    TGOHF666 said:

    "We estimate that 0.27% of people not in care homes, hospitals or other institutional settings in England would test positive for COVID-19 from 27 April to 10 May 2020. "

    Hardly worth the shutdown is it ?
    Obviously that depends what the percentage was before the shutdown and the what the percentage would have been if there hadn't been a shutdown. This result gives not the slightest indication of either of those figures.

    The percentage is very similar to that of the pilot study a few days ago.

    I think what is new is the finding that there was no statistically significant variation with age of the percentage infected. Obviously with subsamples the confidence interval is large, but the data give no hint of an increase with age:
    https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/england14may2020
    Perhaps somebody can confirm this, but apparently the Imperial College model assumed a non-uniform age distribution of infection, presumably based on Chinese data.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 13,729
    edited May 14
    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere near herd immunity, but too high for track and trace. Enough cases to seed an explosion if everything opens up, but a tricky number to completely crush the virus.

    It's a right old pickle isn't it ?

    Maybe we should have a referendum to decide between:

    A. Eradicate the virus China style.
    B. Sweden.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430

    Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.

    Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.

    -----

    There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.

    Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.

    I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
    Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    edited May 14
    Chris said:

    Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.

    Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.

    -----

    There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.

    Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.

    I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
    Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.

    Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.

    Spain have done antibody survey and they say 5% nationally, 11% Madrid.

    We should brace that we are going to be similar.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430

    Chris said:

    Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.

    Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.

    -----

    There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.

    Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.

    I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
    Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.

    Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.

    Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
    I was referring to this last week - "it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures."
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-sided-doves-over-hawks-lockdown

    But probably better to wait for the official figures.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    French citizens will be able to go holidays in France by July and August, Prime Minister Edouard Philippe said, announcing an €18bn (£15.9m) rescue package for the country's tourism industry.

    Doesn't sound like they are going to go with the EU vision of all EU citizens being able to go anywhere for their holibobs.
  • DensparkDenspark Posts: 68

    TGOHF666 said:

    126k tests yesterday.

    Just 2,500 in Scotland.

    We don't hear about test volumes so much these days.

    You're consistent, I'll give you that.

    'On 13 May there were:

    4,009 tests carried out by NHS Scotland in hospitals, care homes or the community, making a total of 111,261 COVID-19 tests through NHS labs to date.
    In addition, there were 1,820 drive through and mobile tests carried out by the Regional Testing Centres in Scotland bringing the total to 32,528 tests to date.'

    https://tinyurl.com/yagk44uc

    he's, i believe, talking about the no people being tested. you're talking, i believe ,about the total no of tests being carried out.

    As can they do multiple tests on people then the 4009 tests is on the 2525 people they tested.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    edited May 14
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.

    Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.

    -----

    There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.

    Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.

    I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
    Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.

    Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.

    Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
    I was referring to this last week - "it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures."
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-sided-doves-over-hawks-lockdown

    But probably better to wait for the official figures.
    Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.

    Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 10,386
    edited May 14
    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere near herd immunity, but too high for track and trace. Enough cases to seed an explosion if everything opens up, but a tricky number to completely crush the virus.

    It's a right old pickle isn't it ?

    Reflecting the goldilocks nature of the virus itself. Just infectious enough and just potent enough in terms of hospitalization and death to cause havoc - yet not quite serious enough to deliver a knockout blow. It is as if designed to torment. Has God succumbed to his dark side?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 4,230

    Nigelb said:

    "Edward Argar, the health minister, said on Thursday no tests had been purchased by the UK as the government was still in discussions with Roche about acquiring them."

    I know the UK government got burned by the dodgy Chinese kits and those companies demanding money upfront, but Roche are legit well known and respected outfit. Also, you would have thought they could have placed ordered, conditional on what Roche said being true.

    Blimey.
    So not only did we take a week longer to approve the test than did others, we haven't bothered to order any in advance.

    In the broadest sense, this government does not seem to value timely intelligence.
    Which is enormously unintelligent of them.
    I wouldn't criticise the government over length taken to validate. I think given previous experiences, getting it right seems very sensible.

    Just because some other European countries or US have said OK, the US for instance also said OK to some rapid tests that don't do what they claim and a number of other European countries have got burned by not properly checking despite giving them the green light.

    In terms of validation, I think the UK approach has been very sensible. Without proper checks and balances on those antibody tests they bought initially, we probably would now be talking about a massive scandal of false test results.

    Not doing a deal in the meantime, now that seems dumb.
    A number of PB.com commenters have welcomed the UKG's decision to decline the invitation to participate in the EU procurement schemes for CV related supplies and have ridiculed those schemes as not 'producing' or 'delivering' anything.

    The day of approval of the Elecsys tests was May 4th in Germany, The same day saw German SoH Jens Spahn attend the opening of the only production line in Penzberg/Bavaria.

    https://www.roche.de/medien/meldungen/bundesgesundheitsminister-spahn-und-bayerischer-ministerpraesident-soeder-besuchen-roche-5138.html

    I posted a comment pointing out this fact on the following day. The worldwide demand for this test (and the COBA machines required to evaluate the samples) outstrips the supply by some measure.
    Fervent PC.com Brexiteers will probably still defend UKG's decision for some reasons.
    Is the EU scheme connected to the production line in question?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 898
    edited May 14
    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere near herd immunity, but too high for track and trace. Enough cases to seed an explosion if everything opens up, but a tricky number to completely crush the virus.

    It's a right old pickle isn't it ?

    Yes. How many cases is it realistic to track and trace with the help of a functioning app?

    If we take the central date of 3rd May and a halving time of 14 days, then we'd be down to ~37,000 cases by the end of May - assuming that garden centres and rounds of golf aren't increasing R.

    It doesn't look good.

    Edit: 37,000 cases equates to about 70 per Westminster Constituency, to provide a bit of context.
  • TGOHF666TGOHF666 Posts: 2,052

    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere near herd immunity, but too high for track and trace. Enough cases to seed an explosion if everything opens up, but a tricky number to completely crush the virus.

    It's a right old pickle isn't it ?

    Yes. How many cases is it realistic to track and trace with the help of a functioning app?

    If we take the central date of 3rd May and a halving time of 14 days, then we'd be down to ~37,000 cases by the end of May - assuming that garden centres and rounds of golf aren't increasing R.

    It doesn't look good.
    Seems like most of the tracking and tracing will be NHS staff and patients and care home staff and patients.

  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 3,162
    So is this thing highly infectious or not?
  • contrariancontrarian Posts: 1,145
    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere near herd immunity, but too high for track and trace. Enough cases to seed an explosion if everything opens up, but a tricky number to completely crush the virus.

    It's a right old pickle isn't it ?

    Maybe we should have a referendum to decide between:

    A. Eradicate the virus China style.
    B. Sweden.
    China wins hands down while Sunak has millions on the government's payroll.

    Many genuinely think they will just walk back into their jobs like nothing happened. The truth is they face either long term redundancy and penury, lower real wages or much higher taxation.

    Sunak thinks he's being moral, but I think there's many a despot would admire his deeply cynical tactics.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    edited May 14
    kinabalu said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere near herd immunity, but too high for track and trace. Enough cases to seed an explosion if everything opens up, but a tricky number to completely crush the virus.

    It's a right old pickle isn't it ?

    Reflecting the goldilocks nature of the virus itself. Just infectious enough and just potent enough in terms of hospitalization and death to cause havoc - yet not quite serious enough to deliver a knockout blow. It is as if designed to torment. Has God succumbed to his dark side?
    We really have to hope that the second rate institution come good on this vaccine....

    I also notice the subtle change in the language regarding shielded people. The government now talking about they must be shielded until AT LEAST the end of June. I am starting to presume they aren't going to be fully released for a significant time after that.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 6,430

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.

    Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.

    -----

    There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.

    Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.

    I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
    Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.

    Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.

    Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
    I was referring to this last week - "it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures."
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-sided-doves-over-hawks-lockdown

    But probably better to wait for the official figures.
    Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.

    Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
    I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 1,599

    BigRich said:

    Pulpstar said:

    BigRich said:

    nichomar said:

    tyson said:

    MaxPB said:

    Pulpstar said:

    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"

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/ijcp.13528

    I hope they're right but it's tricky to square that with the serological data from elsewhere.
    If it really is only 10% London, 4% nationally, it is incredibly depressing. Obviously the large death toll is terrible, but it is even worse if we also find out that basically nobody has even had this thing. There is not any sort of community immunity and the mortality rate is much higher than the 0.4-0.5% more recent studies have been suggesting, it will be in excessive of 1.0%.
    That was two weeks ago and for patients who got the virus at least 2 weeks before the testing date, so it's more like 4 weeks ago. Since then the number of people who have had it will be much, much larger. Probably 2-3x what was reported.
    If you want depressing...then read below....

    I see the game changer antibody test has been approved for use in the UK....it might prove to be a bit worrying....

    I'll give you some provisional data that will send a shudder down global stock markets...Tuscany are presently in the throes of a regional anti body test. Out of 129,000 tested they have found evidence that only 0.5% have had the virus. With healthcare staff it rises to 1.1%.

    Without a vaccine...the only way we can manage this virus is to lock down in a totalitarian like Wuhan to eradicate it, or live with it for years overwhelming our health systems and economy.....whichever way we are fucked.....
    Figures from Spain show only 5% overall with antibodies. In Alicante province it’s 2.7
    There is something we don't understand about this virus -

    It seems highly infectious, yet some people in persistent close proximity fail to catch it. Or at least get symptoms.

    The immune/exposed number is all over the place - Sweden claiming 26% in Stockholm, and now the numbers above from Tuscany.

    The fatality estimates, from reputable scientists, are all over the place.

    I wonder if an issue is the capability of the antibody tests being used?
    I think it is a reflection of Who has had the virus, more than how many,

    Looking at numbers from Sweden and elsewhere, its possible that if a million people under 18 get it then maybe 5 or 6 will die, if just 1,000 over 80 get the virus then perhpase 300-350 die.

    The 5 or 6 kids are sad, but would barley be noticed in the daily death announcement, but 1 million people would move the nation noticeably towards 'Hurd immunity' however: 350 over 80s would almost double the daily total, but the 1,000 makes no difference to Hurd immunity.

    Keeping schools open relay is key, and is probably why Denmark and Finland have now copied Sweden in opening their schools.
    It's not just about deaths, do possible long term survivors complications not worry you just a bit ?
    Yes, all suffering consernes me.

    I support the approach of Sweden, because it seems to be a level headed approach that will minimise total suffering in the long term, and is not contingent on 'and then we discover a vaccine and its all over' in the next couple of months. it maintains basic civil liberty/freedoms, and of less importance but not irreverent will not totally 'trash' the economy.

    As for long term damage to survivors, yes that is also a concern, but does not change my conclusion. I would be very intested in numbers affected, and how badly.

    From what I can see, in Sweden roughly 3,000 dead, 1,500 have been in ICU 500, now dead, 500, recovered and 500, still in ICU.

    I would have thought that the 500 recovered from ICU are the most lickly to be badly affected, 500 is a 1/6th of the 3,000 dead, therefor my big concern is with the 3,000 dead. There will be some others as well, but hard to estimate how many.


    It would be nice to think we had a ready-made alternative, but:

    1 - Sweden's economy will be/is almost as much in the shitter from all of this as its neighbouring countries. It's probably dampened - slightly - the fall, but at the cost of ensuring the return back will be dampened as well. It's the virus and its effects that do the vast majority of the economic damage.

    2 - The Swedish option is not on the cards for the UK - or England, anyway. Population densities and connectivity are far, far higher, so the same strategy would cause a big increase in deaths here. Looking at Sweden compared to its neighbouring countries (with similar population densities, connectivity, economic structure, and social and cultural traits) looks like it gives 4x to 8x as many deaths as a straightforward lockdown.

    3 - There are indications (from the coronaviruses found in the common cold) that illness-recovery-fuelled immunity degrades quite quickly. If they do get immunity (which isn't proven, but I personally believe that indications are that you do get at least limited immunity from recovering), it might be effectively gone in 3-6 months.
    Thanks Andy_cooke, and thaks for keeping this civil. I will try to anser.

    0. To me civil liberty and freedom are important and in this case Sweden has come top of the class.

    1. Sweden's economy will be badly effected, not least my the disruption to supply canes and markets overseas, but this would happen anyway, but there approach Vs Lock-down will I think of led to less government borrowing and less unemployment, how much will be hard to calculate even when all the numbers are known in a year or two, and even harder now, but that does not mean it will be trivial.

    2. Population density will have an effect, especially on the speed of the transmition, but probably not as big effect on total deaths over a long period of time. Stockholm is also a big city of 2 million, so fairly comparable to other big city's. the rest of Scandinavian locked down very early in there outbreaks and that may be why there are so few deaths there at the moment compared to the rest of europ, but a lock-down may not be sustainable ......

    3. We by definition do not know the long-term immunity that this virus will have, we can say with confidants that it does give very good short term immunity, which is not a guarantee but an indication that it will give at least some long term immunity. but agreed this is not known, but am perhaps more optimistic that you.

    Anyway, relay hoping we get a good quality, large scale antibody test from Sweden soon.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909

    So is this thing highly infectious or not?


  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 45,909
    edited May 14
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    Our latest estimates indicate that at any given time during the two weeks from 27 April to 10 May 2020, an average of 148,000 people in England had the coronavirus (COVID-19) (95% confidence interval: 94,000 to 222,000). This equates to 0.27% (95% confidence interval: 0.17% to 0.41%) of the population in England. This estimate is based on tests performed on 10,705 people in 5,276 households.

    Out of the 10,705 participants’ swab tests included in this analysis, 33 individuals in 30 households tested positive for COVID-19. The figures do not include people in hospital or care homes where rates of COVID-19 infection are likely to be higher.

    -----

    There is no way we are talking say 20% of people have had this. All those fill in your own symptoms surveying are just nonsense.

    Using the day of death figures we have just over 4,000 deaths since April 27th.

    I'm sure there's some way to look at the halving time in number of deaths and make some assumptions to work out a death rate from the estimate on number of cases from the ONS... but on the face of it would be hard to make that death rate much less than 1%, if at all.
    Probably better to wait for the results from the antibody branch of this study, but figures in the press suggested the preliminary results were around 10%, in which case the fatality rate would be on the order of 1%.

    Witty - 10% London, 4% nationally. Still lagging, as takes time to create antibodies etc. But still, the most recent briefing is they still think single figures for national.

    Spain have done antibody survey and is 5%, 11% Madrid.
    I was referring to this last week - "it is currently believed that the percentage of those who have had it is in the low teens or high single figures."
    https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexwickham/boris-johnson-sided-doves-over-hawks-lockdown

    But probably better to wait for the official figures.
    Even if is 10% nationally. We are in a bad spot. A high number of deaths, but nowhere near enough people had it to help reduce the ease of community transmission as we start to open up.

    Neither suppressed it and keep death down, or as thought in Sweden a large number of people have now had this with a strategy that can continue indefinitely.
    I don't understand why people think there is a larger percentage of people in Sweden who have had it, considering that our death rate per head of population is so much higher.
    Because Mr Swedish Witty says so. He said in a recent interview, currently 20-25% of Stockholm, approaching 20% nationally shortly. He might be pulling figures out of his arse, but that is what he says.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 59,310

    tlg86 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nowhere near herd immunity, but too high for track and trace. Enough cases to seed an explosion if everything opens up, but a tricky number to completely crush the virus.

    It's a right old pickle isn't it ?

    Maybe we should have a referendum to decide between:

    A. Eradicate the virus China style.
    B. Sweden.
    China wins hands down while Sunak has millions on the government's payroll.

    Many genuinely think they will just walk back into their jobs like nothing happened. The truth is they face either long term redundancy and penury, lower real wages or much higher taxation.

    Sunak thinks he's being moral, but I think there's many a despot would admire his deeply cynical tactics.
    Dunno, plenty of employment for welders with the chinese methods.
Sign In or Register to comment.