Coronavirus

[Mike T]

A study carried out by Public Health England and Cambridge University calculates a much larger proportion for the UK.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...g-north-south/

The new data also suggests that huge numbers of people have already been infected with the disease, around 6.5 million overall in England, including 1.8 million in London.

Overall, around one in 5 Londoners has been infected by the virus since the epidemic began, compared with 14 per cent of people in the North West, 11 per cent in the Midlands, the North East and Yorkshire, 10 per cent in the East of England and eight per cent in the south east.

This study is the same one that thinks there is only 24 new daily infections in London at the moment - as WP has mentioned. If true, could this be that an element of herd immunity kicking in? The number who have had the virus may be more than estimated above. The conventional wisdom is that 60% infection is required to achieve herd immunity. However, the Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine thinks it is much less than that because it is based on the assumption that we are all equally susceptible to the disease. Clearly that is not the case. They say that gradually the pool of easily-infected individuals dries up and the virus has to search out new victims who are less-easily infected.

So a bit more than 10% have had it, if they are correct.
R varies with the organism, and with behaviour - in tight lockdowns it will be lower, with normal freedoms, higher.
And a low, or even zero R does not mean nobody is susceptible, it just means nobody is getting it, because of a
tight lockdown, for example.
The % of the population needed for herd immunity varies with R - and is 90% for an R of 10, 50% for an R of 2.
The results of more widespread serological testing will be interesting.

[Witton Park]

So a bit more than 10% have had it, if they are correct.
R varies with the organism, and with behaviour - in tight lockdowns it will be lower, with normal freedoms, higher.
And a low, or even zero R does not mean nobody is susceptible, it just means nobody is getting it, because of a
tight lockdown, for example.
The % of the population needed for herd immunity varies with R - and is 90% for an R of 10, 50% for an R of 2.
The results of more widespread serological testing will be interesting.

So let's say 10% have anti-bodies.

The school age population seems to have an immunity as well. That's 21%. (underlined by your Spanish study that showed presence of anti-bodies in children is nil - very low according to a Prof who's just discussed it on radio)

Then a proportion of the adult population have a natural immunity and defeat the virus without developing anti-bodies.

There's even a school of thought that smokers are less likely to catch (although if they do they are in more trouble) and they could be a barrier to cross infection. I can well understand this isn't put out there officially as the last thing the Govt wants is a spike in tobacco addiction.

It's quite easy to see how the traditional 60% herd levels thought to apply to such as flu may not be at play with CV, and note that SARS disappeared in the population.

And the cases of infection are dropping, especially when you consider that we have 10 times as many tests, and most of those tests are still mostly aimed at key workers assessed as higher risk, and suspected infected people the % of positives has dropped off a cliff.

It's lockdown perhaps? Or maybe it's pockets of herd immunity, or perhaps the overall levels of immunity/resistance are greater than many think.

[Mike T]

So let's say 10% have anti-bodies.

The school age population seems to have an immunity as well. That's 21%. (underlined by your Spanish study that showed presence of anti-bodies in children is nil - very low according to a Prof who's just discussed it on radio)

Then a proportion of the adult population have a natural immunity and defeat the virus without developing anti-bodies.

There's even a school of thought that smokers are less likely to catch (although if they do they are in more trouble) and they could be a barrier to cross infection. I can well understand this isn't put out there officially as the last thing the Govt wants is a spike in tobacco addiction.

It's quite easy to see how the traditional 60% herd levels thought to apply to such as flu may not be at play with CV, and note that SARS disappeared in the population.

And the cases of infection are dropping, especially when you consider that we have 10 times as many tests, and most of those tests are still mostly aimed at key workers assessed as higher risk, and suspected infected people the % of positives has dropped off a cliff.

It's lockdown perhaps? Or maybe it's pockets of herd immunity, or perhaps the overall levels of immunity/resistance are greater than many think.

The story with smokers is said by some to be a statistical artefact - something to do with allocating risk to groups - how do you separate smoking from gender, from income, from lung pathology, from cancer - and so on.

[Witton Park]

The story with smokers is said by some to be a statistical artefact - something to do with allocating risk to groups - how do you separate smoking from gender, from income, from lung pathology, from cancer - and so on.

Strange how they seem to be able to strip out ethnicity, obesity, gender.... but as soon as you mention smoking it is said by some….

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...d-19-survival/

Article here with some links to some work done.

https://www.qeios.com/read/FXGQSB
A bit technical for me, but some might like a read.

But the point I'm trying to make is that sometimes these virus just burn out in the population and the section of society that has developed anti-bodies only seems to be part of the story.

[Mike T]

Strange how they seem to be able to strip out ethnicity, obesity, gender.... but as soon as you mention smoking it is said by some….

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/202...d-19-survival/

Article here with some links to some work done.

https://www.qeios.com/read/FXGQSB
A bit technical for me, but some might like a read.

But the point I'm trying to make is that sometimes these virus just burn out in the population and the section of society that has developed anti-bodies only seems to be part of the story.

Sorting out cause/effect/association is a real problem in statistics/epidemiology. The classic case was with HRT - hormone replacement therapy - in post menopausal women. For years we were told that HRT was good for bones, but that the main benefit, based on observational studies, was in cardio vascular disease reduction. When trials were eventually done it turned out this was completely wrong. They had been unable to separate the effect of income on risk from the benefits or otherwise of HRT. Those on higher incomes were far more likely to ask for HRT - the statisticians thought they had allowed for this in their statistical modelling, but they hadn't.

[Witton Park]

12 new cases in the last 2 days across the 6 East Lancs constituencies.

[Stagger]

Who is telling the truth???

Roll on a round of golf tomorrow ��

[Oracle]

More evidence , not that any is needed, that teachers are playing hookey and actively damaging child education by keeping schools closed when the case was only borderline in the first place: meanwhile the economic damage are doing is massive by forcing parents to look after kids , so stopping others going to work. Selfish is the only description.


https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics...w-study-finds/


The teachers unions were given a false choice. Stay at home on full pay, or work on full pay. No surprises which they pick.

The choice should have been be furloughed on 80 percent pay up to 30000( like everyone else in private sector), or go back to work. Take your pick. Payment is supposed to be for work. Too much of the public sector is at home on full pay.

Can anybody see an identifiable penny paid by public sector for the cost of corona?

[Travs]

The choice should have been be furloughed on 80 percent pay up to 30000( like everyone else in private sector), or go back to work. Take your pick. Payment is supposed to be for work. Too much of the public sector is at home on full pay.

You would appear to be far more knowledgeable than me on this subject... but i see it like this... you have a choice... private or public sector... public sector generally brings a lower salary, but benefits in the way of great pensions, and as we are seeing now, a degree of protection provided by the government/state/unions.

"We" choose to work in the private sector, and have the opportunity to be rewarded well based on merit with generally better salary prospects, but (much like the self-employed and business owners), we are liable to fall on our sword if the economy struggles.

I interviewed (and subsequently turned down a job offer) from one of the huge water providers in this company... was basically told that if i was in any way competent it was a job for life, fairly stress-free, and great pension. But i chose a similar role within a private sector company as the salary was almost 50% higher.

I'm not saying it's right that the teachers appear to have such a degree of protection, but that's the plus side of being in the public sector...

[Witton Park]

You would appear to be far more knowledgeable than me on this subject... but i see it like this... you have a choice... private or public sector... public sector generally brings a lower salary, but benefits in the way of great pensions, and as we are seeing now, a degree of protection provided by the government/state/unions.

"We" choose to work in the private sector, and have the opportunity to be rewarded well based on merit with generally better salary prospects, but (much like the self-employed and business owners), we are liable to fall on our sword if the economy struggles.

I interviewed (and subsequently turned down a job offer) from one of the huge water providers in this company... was basically told that if i was in any way competent it was a job for life, fairly stress-free, and great pension. But i chose a similar role within a private sector company as the salary was almost 50% higher.

I'm not saying it's right that the teachers appear to have such a degree of protection, but that's the plus side of being in the public sector...

I think the salary point in the public sector is patchy.

Basic job in private sector - supermarket, care worker, warehouse operative.... tend to be minimum wage and basic jobs at the Council tend to be north of £10 per hour.

And there's plenty of info out there about higher level managers in the public sector earning £100k +