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
tabby aspreme wrote: » Are there up to date figures for the numbers tested.
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
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.
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.
coastwatch wrote: » I think the population of an aircraft carrier is generally going to be young and fit, so probably not a good comparison with a general population. Maybe at the other extreme, a study of the same question, using the outbreak on the Diamond Princess cruise ship, found the estimated asymptomatic rate of positive tests was only 18%.https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2020.25.10.2000180
niallo27 wrote: » That article says that 50% were asymptomatic.
coastwatch wrote: » "In this study, we conducted statistical modelling analyses on publicly available data to elucidate the asymptomatic proportion, along with the time of infection among the COVID-19 cases on board the Diamond Princess cruise ship. Our estimated asymptomatic proportion is at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%), which overlaps with a recently derived estimate of 33.3% (95% confidence interval: 8.3–58.3%) from data of Japanese citizens evacuated from Wuhan [13].
niallo27 wrote: » Of the 634 confirmed cases, a total of 306 and 328 were reported to be symptomatic and asymptomatic, respectively. Plus you cherry picked data here, varying the incubation period increased the estimate to 40%.
gormdubhgorm wrote: » People are not happy about what is happening in the nursing homes in Sweden. The Covid19 infection is basically being brought into nursing homes.https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yTRUR_AqupMJ:https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/19/anger-in-sweden-as-elderly-pay-price-for-coronavirus-strategy+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie
coastwatch wrote: » Not cherry picking, just quoting the summary findings of the study, which uses statistical modelling to estimate the percentage of asymptomatic positive cases,Findings from the real-time outbreak analysis The posterior median estimate of the true proportion of asymptomatic individuals among the reported asymptomatic cases is 0.35 (95% credible interval (CrI): 0.30–0.39), with the estimated total number of the true asymptomatic cases at 113.3 (95%CrI: 98.2–128.3) and the estimated asymptomatic proportion (among all infected cases) at 17.9% (95%CrI: 15.5–20.2%).
jibber5000 wrote: » 40% of our fatalities are from nursing homes. Just for context to the 33% there.
Mic 1972 wrote: » and that leaves 60% of fatalities from community which is where the virus is currently spreading, not very reassuring
Bit cynical wrote: » However you are comparing deaths per day with positive cases, the latter figure being very dependent on the numbers being tested.
Breezin wrote: » Herd immunity keeps cropping up. Sweden has explicitly said, in response to an accusation by D. Trump, that it is not pursuing such a policy.
jibber5000 wrote: » Well yeah? Of course there's lots of fatalities in the community. The point is the shocking number of fatalities from nursing homes rather than the number in the community.
jibber5000 wrote: » The ICU capacity number is really nonsense. If the surge does come they will just extend the ICU to include theatre recovery areas. All it takes is reskilling nurses and purchasing ventilators, neither of which is a big issue. It would be helpful if you understood this before posting in absolutes.
STB. wrote: » That's what it is though. Their epidemiologist doesn't like the word. The very people who taught him disagree with his approach.
ush wrote: » Policy is to make sure health service doesn't crash. That would lead to more deaths in the long run.
Breezin wrote: » But they are not claiming it as a solution, as the UK and NL did initially. It's much more nuanced than that. The point is that's it's not either/or. It's a matter of degree, and more targeted actions.
