charlie14 wrote: » Herd immunity Four weeks ago the result of 50,000 antibody tests showed just 6.1% nationally had developed antibodies.
Mad Benny wrote: » It may be the case that "antibody testing alone underestimates immunity". REF: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-53248660
timmy_mallet wrote: » Which is give or take 14x the mortality rate experienced elsewhere. Assuming Swedeners are as healthy as most of the rest of the world, that would suggest over 1 million cases. Well on their way to to herd immunity while the rest of us explode from parenting+homeschooling/lack of social interaction/wearing masks playing football(!)
cnocbui wrote: » And it might take 43%. Given a Swedish ambassador claimed Stockholm had reached 30% infected back in May, they may well have reached 43% by now.:https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20200626/herd-immunity-threshold-could-be-as-low-as-43-percent
greyday wrote: » It can take over 60% infection to achieve herd immunity, it may take 80%, Sweden are no where near that level and most likely will not get there before any immunity infection confers wears off. Sweden are at or under 20% if we go by what the experts say.......like the rest of the world they will be waiting on a vaccine to gain herd immunity.
June 26, 2020 -- Herd immunity might be achieved when only 43% of a population becomes immune to the coronavirus. Herd immunity might be achieved when only 43% of a population becomes immune to the coronavirus, mathematicians from the University of Nottingham and University of Stockholm wrote in an article in Science. That’s “substantially less than the classical herd immunity level of 60% obtained through homogeneous immunization of the population,” they wrote. The researchers define herd immunity as the point at which immunity in the population reaches a level that spread of the disease declines, even after preventive measures have been relaxed. But if you don’t have herd immunity and preventive measures are eased, a second wave of infection may occur, they said. The authors calculated herd immunity by factoring in different age groups and social activity levels in a population and how that affected a person’s susceptibility to the virus. The average person would transmit the virus to 2.5 people. "By taking this new mathematical approach to estimating the level for herd immunity to be achieved we found it could potentially be reduced to 43% and that this reduction is mainly due to activity level rather than age structure,” one of the authors, Frank Ball from the University of Nottingham, said in a news release from the university.
timmy_mallet wrote: » 10x, if not more than ours!
greyday wrote: » 10% of total population infected is well on their way to herd immunity?????
Researchers now say it could work to some extent if only one or two out of 10 people have been infected naturally and become immune to the disease. They said higher estimates worked on the basis that immunity is given to everyone by a vaccine, but in reality the people who first get infected are likely to continue to be the ones most at risk, so if they develop immunity, the less-at-risk will also benefit.
biko wrote: » 76492 official cases 5572 officially dead 7.3% of known cases have passed Numbers from FHMs own tracking pagehttps://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa
joeysoap wrote: » The same paper thinks Brexit is great. As Popeye say ‘you pays your money....’ I’m just glad not to be Swedish. ( I’m 70)
JimmyVik wrote: » According to some here you are expendable
Donald Trump wrote: » Same author has an article saying how smoking protects you from corona.......................
Although our study found that COPD and smoking populations were less likely to be infected with SARS‐CoV‐2
Interestingly, while two of the studies found no relationship and Study 2 found a positive correlation between smoking and ACE2 expression, there are rat-model studies published in 2015 (5) and 2017 (6) that actually found the opposite. That is, in rats exposed to cigarette smoke they saw ACE2 expression was lower than in rats not exposed to cigarettesmoke.
Deleted User wrote: » So let's be clear on the level of your ignorance: You don't believe travel patterns to and from the centre of an epidemic are relevant to the spread of a virus You don't believe healthcare models are relevant to the spread of a virus You don't believe socio-cultural factors are relevant to the spread of a virus (everything from being a culture that kisses cheeks upon greeting, to being a culture where sitting beside a stranger is considered rude) You don't believe demographics are relevant to the spread of a virus (e.g. age distribution, average household size, population density, prevalence of risk factors such as diabetes and obesity etc) You don't believe geographic factors are relevant to the spread of a virus (climate, distance between cities etc) Among other things you clearly don't believe are relevant. Instead, you think when experts talk about comparing like-for-like, you believe they're talking the kinds of cars people drive and the food they eat. Sweden-defenders really are something else. Are they at the level of anti-vaxxers and 5g conspiracy theorists at this stage? It feels like they are given the lack of any sort of attempt at even pseudo-intellectualism or rationalism in their arguments.
cnocbui wrote: » This is so funny and deadly accurate:https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/11/second-wave-covid-swedish-approach-will-have-right-along/?WT.mc_id=e_DM1265932&WT.tsrc=email&etype=Edi_Edi_New_Reg&utmsource=email&utm_medium=Edi_Edi_New_Reg20200713&utm_campaign=DM1265932 Does the Author hang out on this thread?
cnocbui wrote: » Because it's a virus; it doesn't care whether your language is riddled with umlauts or you know a lot of people called Sven or Gianna; if you drive a Volvo as opposed to a Alfa or a Citroen. It likely doesn't care if you like pickled herring or bacon carbonara. This insistence on only comparing Sweden to immediate neighbours is an artificial device based on an unproven hypothesis that the virus gives a sh** about the non biological differences you insist matter. There is ample evidence the virus doesn't care; it's run rampant everywhere, ignoring all climate, geographic, cultural, language and sartorial differences.
MOH wrote: » But Sweden has twice the population of Norway. Why not compare Norway with somewhere with similar population, like, say, Ireland?
charlie14 wrote: » Demographics also takes into account area and population.
charlie14 wrote: » Demographics also takes into account area and population. France is by area over 21 times larger than Belgium yet has only 6 times the population. Belgium also over-counted Covid-19 deaths. UK simply played around with the Swedish strategy for too long before locking down. Italy initially made a shambles of their lockdown as well.
charlie14 wrote: » If he does then he is a fan of the Swedish strategy. Why would you not compare countries on a like for like basis rather than countries that have little or nothing in common
cnocbui wrote: » Are Italy and the UK geographically adjacent with the same demographics? Their Covid-19 stats are so similar you would think that were the case, based on your assertion. France and Belgium are geographically next to each other and demographically... so much for that theory.
charlie14 wrote: » Rubbish. Demographics alone make a massive difference in the spread of an infectious disease. Or do you somehow believe that a country with a high number of single person households will have the same spread of infections as one with multi-generation households living in close proximity
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6d8a632a9fb85629e1cafb0fd27003c4.svg)
