Coronavirus (OLD)

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

By this logic, the 1.5% figure in March could be the wrong figure.

4 months ago.

The UK health secretary, Matt Hancock, says sample testing has shown that approximately 17 percent of London's population now have COVID-19 antibodies.

...
That same testing sample found that approximately 5 percent of the wider UK population have antibodies, though Hancock stressed that more testing is required to paint a more accurate picture.

[1andrew1]

Originally Posted by Mad Max

Where do they get the 6% figure from, Andrew?

Someone else found it: https://assets.publishing.service.go...n_COVID-19.pdf

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by 1andrew1

Someone else found it: https://assets.publishing.service.go...n_COVID-19.pdf

I may be reading it wrong, but that does not correlate to this, that says 6% as a base line but variances across the nation, as high as 20% in the North West.

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...ce-of-covid-19

But still, they are gathering the data from blood donors, which must have a very large margin of error.

Originally Posted by nomadking

4 months ago.

Last month

https://www.imperial.nhs.uk/about-us...lishes-results

More than 100,000 people across England have tested themselves for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies at home as part of a major national research programme supported by staff at Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust.

Led by Imperial College London, the REACT (REal Time Assessment of Community Transmission) study is using antibody finger-prick tests to track past infections and monitor the progress of the pandemic. It’s the first nation-wide antibody surveillance study to be rolled out across England using self-testing at home and the first findings provide an initial insight in to trends in infection across the country.

REACT has been commissioned by the Department of Health and Social Care, and is being carried out in partnership with Imperial College London, Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust and Ipsos MORI.

The first findings to be published from the study, which have been submitted for peer review, suggest that slightly under 6% of the population may have antibodies for the virus by the end of June – an estimated 3.4 million people. The presence of antibodies indicates that they were likely to have previously been exposed to Covid-19. London had the highest number of people with antibodies, at over twice the national average (13 per cent), while the South West had the lowest (3 per cent).

[jfman]

Is there any reason to suspect why a blood donor would have greater/lesser likelihood of catching Covid-19 and developing an antibody response and if they do that response would be shorter/longer lasting?

I think you're desperately looking for flaws in the science where there are none.

Nomadking points to the blood samples taken in March, but there's no inherent conflict there, antibodies diminish. That's not news. There's definitely something in what pip is putting forward with the t-cell response, but there's not enough there yet in the science to justify abandoning everything done and achieved to date. It'd be great if there was, but the figures are all moving in the wrong direction.

[Carth]

I think there's 'trace' evidence to suggest many of the suppositions and theories being put forward could have an element of truth in them, but, as said, it's much too early to be stating any of it as being definite.

That probably accounts for much of the 'could, likely, may, possibly' etc that is used extensively

[jfman]

All countries, literally all, need to simultaneously push to zero. Release areas/regions from lockdown when they get there. When someone finally does the sums this was always the rational response.

However capitalism, and an aim for competitive advantage, always made some idiots gamble. If they are right the returns are huge. However like a problem gambler they routinely lose. There's only ever been one way out without a vaccine. I'll likely still be here in spring arguing as hundreds of billions have been spend on Covid mitigation. A fraction of the cost of paying 66 million folk, on a household basis, to stay apart for 2 months.

[Pierre]

Originally Posted by jfman

A fraction of the cost of paying 66 million folk, on a household basis, to stay apart for 2 months.

we tried that already.

Originally Posted by Pierre

we tried that already.

9.6 million of them

https://www.statista.com/statistics/...e-on-furlough/

On a lighter note...

Listen carefully, I will say zis only once...

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

On a lighter note...

Listen carefully, I will say zis only once...

Well that's a lot clearer than anything the gov have put out

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I haven't seen a single mask transgressor at Waitrose Wokingham in all these weeks.

If I can bring myself to do so, I might check out a nearby Aldi and Lidl. Might even bump into OB!

Not in Aldi or Lidl, you won't!

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

Some people are legitimately exempt but I suspect there’s many more Covid deniers who perceive it to be the Government trying to put them in a muzzle. Ironically, it’s these idiots making it worse, and dragging it out for longer.

It's lockdowns that drag this on forever. You are still clinging on to your belief that if you just lock everything down, the virus will simply go away. It won't, and this second wave coming back all over Europe is proof of that.

How many times must this happen before you finally come to terms with the fact that if each lockdown produces another wave at the end, further lockdowns will have exactly the same effect until it has infected sufficient people?

Lockdowns slow the infection rate. They do not eliminate it.

---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------

Originally Posted by jfman

This was never genuinely the case. Having seen every idiot and their dog stockpile toilet roll they were keen to ensure that appropriate PPE was prioritised to healthcare settings.

The science clearly supports masks. It always has. The British public couldn’t be trusted to be asked not to stockpile. So they downplayed the evidence.

What rubbish! The masks that are on sale to the public are pretty useless, and that is medical opinion. I get it that you disagree with that view.

I think most thinking people realise that the mask wearing is being encouraged to get nervous people out of their homes. It's not a safety measure, it's reassurance. What you might call a false sense of security.

[jfman]

Ah Old Boy. Welcome to the thread I’ve been waiting since a second lockdown is now a virtual certainty. Please don’t misrepresent my position though.

You are still clinging on to your belief that if you just lock everything down, the virus will simply go away.

Nobody anywhere has claimed it will ‘simply go away’ other than yourself and that’s not worked out well for you has it?

Originally Posted by OLD BOY

Not in Aldi or Lidl, you won't!

---------- Post added at 12:35 ---------- Previous post was at 12:28 ----------



It's lockdowns that drag this on forever. You are still clinging on to your belief that if you just lock everything down, the virus will simply go away. It won't, and this second wave coming back all over Europe is proof of that.

How many times must this happen before you finally come to terms with the fact that if each lockdown produces another wave at the end, further lockdowns will have exactly the same effect until it has infected sufficient people?

Lockdowns slow the infection rate. They do not eliminate it.

---------- Post added at 12:39 ---------- Previous post was at 12:35 ----------



What rubbish! The masks that are on sale to the public are pretty useless, and that is medical opinion. I get it that you disagree with that view.

I think most thinking people realise that the mask wearing is being encouraged to get nervous people out of their homes. It's not a safety measure, it's reassurance. What you might call a false sense of security.

Scientists disagree...

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news...-what-18592384

The study, published last week by the British Academy and the Royal Society as part of Royal Society’s SET-C (Science in Emergencies Tasking – COVID-19) group, also found that wearing a cotton mask protects the mask wearer as well - combining all research on cloth masks in a new meta-analysis.

"Attention must also be placed on how well it fits on the face; it should loop around the ears or around the back of the neck for better coverage," Prof Mills continued.

"The evidence is clear that people should wear masks to reduce virus transmission and protect themselves

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Scientists disagree...

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news...-what-18592384

mostly with each other.