Del Griffith wrote: » You're still ignoring the asymptomatic, which throws off all your %'s. Look at the french aircraft carrier, over 1000 people infected. According to your %'s there should be 10 dead, 30 in ICU and 150 in hospital. There's zero dead, 1 in ICU, and over 60% completely asymptomatic. The 60% found asymptomatic were only tested because they were on the ship, in the wider community they never would have got a test. This is why the % rates can't be relied on at the moment, in my opinion.
wakka12 wrote: » Well I dont think I had COVID. I'm sure many other people have not experienced sickness since January either. I cant imagine many people who havnt recently (in the last 2 months)experienced flu symptoms entering into the study, which will very significantly skew the figure and falsely inflate the apparent number of people who had COVID within the general population. 2 weeks, didnt know that, thought it was more recent. Yeh could well be different by now then. But a top estimate of 4.2% in a densely populated city based on self volunteered candidates doesnt make me think its as widespread as some theorise.
coastwatch wrote: » Articles on the "herd immunity" approach (Sweden's apparent policy) is that 70% of the population would need to have had the virus for population immunity to be effective, so true, not the whole population. For Sweden, population 10.2m, 70% would mean 7.1 million people need to have had the virus for population immunity. That means, 7.1 million would be unwell / sick at some stage this year, around 1m people would require hospitalisation (15% of 7.1m) around 215000 would require ICU treatment (3% of 7.1m) around 71000 deaths would result (1% of 7.1m)https://www.sciencealert.com/why-herd-immunity-will-not-save-us-from-the-covid-19-pandemic
tabby aspreme wrote: » Are there up to date figures for the numbers tested.
tabby aspreme wrote: » I would agree, considering it's in 30% of nursing homes, the residents of which have not left those premises since early March
jibber5000 wrote: » All your figures are correct. Even if we do go with a 1% circa mortality rate - very much on the high side - you are basing your figures on everyone of the population catching the virus. That's not possible.
jibber5000 wrote: » And that was two weeks ago. We know how infectious it is by the way it spreads. I'd be stunned if it was as low as 1% at the moment.
jibber5000 wrote: » I think everyone thinks they have had Covid. Or at least would love to find out whether they have had symptoms or not? And that was two weeks ago. We know how infectious it is by the way it spreads. I'd be stunned if it was as low as 1% at the moment.
jibber5000 wrote: » We've ramped up testing and still have not reached 15,000
wakka12 wrote: » I'm sure cases are underrepresented by 10-20x in most countries but 4% of the populations certainly have not had COVID. The American study in Santa Clara was based on a sample of self volunteered people and will be highly skewed toward those who believe they have had COVID already. It is not random community testing and definitely cannot be extrapolated to the entire population,particularly as the study was based within the 5th most densely populated metropolitan area in the country also I would imagine around 1% of the US population have had the disease. In NYC, Detroit, Boston, probably much much higher than that, in many less populated regions of the US its likely close to 0% though
biko wrote: » The health authorities said when the pandemic hit Sweden their plan had two prongs, protect the old and let herd immunity in young population make everyone resilient. They did not manage to protect the old and tbh it looks like this herd immunity isn't working out either.
jibber5000 wrote: » You're ignoring the whole Swedish position. They are convinced the curve will flatten for them in the next week. For the simple reason that it is the most vulnerable (elderly, comorbidites) who will have already contracted/ shown sympoms of the virus so far. We can theorise from the 2 American studies this week that 3 -4% of the population have already contracted Covid. Thus the mortality rate is far far lower than had been thought. If the virus is as common as that the theory is that herd immunity will happen at a much quicker rate.
jibber5000 wrote: » Antibody tests are running in our hospitals.
jibber5000 wrote: » It got into the nursing homes which skewed things to a large extent.
Del Griffith wrote: » Good post. Where I disagree with you is only in that I don't think we can rely on any death rate % when the testing penetration is so low. I'm basing what I've been posting and saying from the estimates in the sources I posted. There have been several studies trying to evaluate actual infection rates Germany estimates between 2-4% infected (using anti-body test - https://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/medizin/coronavirus-wie-antikoerpertests-dabei-helfen-die-pandemie-zu-verstehen-a-2258edcd-a304-4ee0-83cc-76a24f340c45 China data - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-15/china-s-data-on-symptom-free-cases-reveals-most-never-get-sick?sref=XdK4dijq UK, small sample (pregnant women) 13.8% infected and asymptomatic - https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316 Every study suggests the infected number everywhere is way, way higher than the tested positive number. That obviously means the death rates is far lower, and perhaps some of these measures may have been a bit knee-jerk. We'll find out in the end I guess. Looking forward to antibody tests.
Att vara en hest wrote: » c19.se becomes misleading when they report deaths as occurring on the day they were reported, sometimes gathering deaths from a 4 day period and putting it on a single day.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » No, every country that eradicates the disease will be closed to Sweden. Do you believe that we will have flights to Stockholm if they persist? Really? We won't, nor will any other western country. For pure security and health reasons we won't. If that is the price they want to pay so be it... The world won't tremble at the loss.
tabby aspreme wrote: » With so little testing going on, we were never going to reach the 15000 cases
coastwatch wrote: » Not hysteria, just explaining why I believe the "herd immunity" approach is not an option as it would overwhelm health care systems. The overall statistics for Ireland and other countries so far is that, Approximately 20% of people tested positive require some hospitalisation. (It's 64% for confirmed covid positive people 65 years and older, and 32% for confirmed covid positive aged 50-64 years). According to ECDC update for 8th April,Based on data from EU/EEA countries, 32% of the diagnosed cases have required hospitalisation and 2.4% have had severe illness requiring respiratory support and/or ventilation. The crude fatality rate was 1.5% among diagnosed cases and 11% among hospitalised cases.https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-eighth-update-8-april-2020.pdf 3-4% of all hospitalisations require ICU treatment. (2.4% in the ECDC update) The death rates are still very debatable, but the observed fatality rates are in the 1-2% range, including 1.38% observed for China, quoted in that Lancet paper,"we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53)". The ECDC update is reporting a "crude fatality rate was 1.5%" The death rates may turn out to be lower, when population testing confirms the true extent of infections. It may turn out to be higher when overall mortality statistics are compared with previous year.https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/index.htmlhttps://www.ecdc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/covid-19-rapid-risk-assessment-coronavirus-disease-2019-eighth-update-8-april-2020.pdf
biko wrote: » Tegnell said a month ago the curve was flattening. Then old people started dying but he thinks he can see a flattening curve this time.
jibber5000 wrote: » You're ignoring the whole Swedish position. They are convinced the curve will flatten for them in the next week. For the simple reason that it is the most vulnerable (elderly, comorbidites) who will have already contracted/ shown sympoms of the virus so far.
jibber5000 wrote: » I never said Immunity was guaranteed. I said that's their Theory. The point is nobody knows. The WHO have no idea either as it's too early to say. What nearly every country is basing their public health policy on is the Imperial College London paper which hasn't even been peer reviewed yet. Models have been wrong time and again with Covid. We were told by Leo on the 15th March there would be 15,000 cases in Ireland even with the lockdown. He was obviously told this by the public health experts. We ended up with 3,400. Just 450% of an overestimation.
Del Griffith wrote: » Where are you getting these figures from? They're bat**** (excuse the pun) crazy. 20% of population require hospital treatment over next 6-12 months , I think you mean 20% of OVER-80 YEAR OLDS source: https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/196573/covid-19-one-five-over-80s-need-hospitalisation/ Death rate estimated around 0.66%. Source: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30243-7/fulltext This sort of hysteria is causing additional harm.
Kermit.de.frog wrote: » Can you point us to the scientific papers that say immunity is guaranteed? Only yesterday the WHO implied the opposite.
jibber5000 wrote: » If the virus is as common as that the theory is that herd immunity will happen at a much quicker rate.
