Quote Originally Posted by Witton Park View Post
Not being medically skilled on this topic, I have to use my maths/stats skills to weigh up the information we have and whilst having an open mind wouldn't you agree that the stats we have would suggest a much wider degree of infection in the public would seem likely than is indicated by the anti-body testing?

We can see how quickly it can spread in a range of situations, we can be pretty sure it was here in January and perhaps pre Xmas, and such a virulent virus, that is largely asymptomatic or mild cold like symptoms, could well have been knocking about for a month or two almost unnoticed.

I can get my head around that - there's a logic to it.

There doesn't seem to be a logic behind such a virulent virus only having got to 5-7% of the population. I can't look at the stats and work back to a way that this might have come about, because it would indicate that it wasn't so infectious if that was the case.
The anti body testing data is not robust enough at the moment to provide accurate numbers on those who have been infected or what immunity can be expected.

The statistical reports out there from the scientific community advise up to a 30% infection rate for England, others have suggested about half that, I think the govt put a figure of nearly 20% for London back in May with the rest of the country lower, but certainly more than 5%, all very interesting stuff but you know what they say about stats.