Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by 14stFlyer

  1. Nope. 6% of population have measurable antibodies for COVID-19. It is known that some people who have indisputably had COVID-19, do not have measurable antibodies. Therefore more than 6% of the UK population have had COVID-19. How many more than this is very much up for dispute in the scientific community at the moment. This suggests that the Infection Fatality Rate is probably less than 1.2%, but again, how much lower is still very much up for debate.
  2. ...what he said There is a difference between articles trying to push our understanding on, and those regurgitating previous work. The New Scientist article is excellent. It is well researched, well balanced and does not make assertions where there is insufficient data to yet do so. However it does not tell us anything new. My summary of what they said is: Sweden has more deaths per capita than Denmark or Norway, but fewer than the UK. This is bad, although partially explained by appalling lack of protection (and possibly negligence) in protecting those in care homes. However, like London or NY, it has approximately 20% of population with antibodies (and a currently untested number with T Cell memory). This is good from the point of view of controlling any future second wave and will potentially looser controls going forward and may allow faster "return to normal". Sweden have taken a slightly lower hit to their economy so far than the EU average, although it is difficult to compare different economies. Sweden have had slightly less disruption to society than most other European countries, especially for younger people, although it is too early to say how much long term advantage this may give. Your reading of it may be different. However, the clue was in the title - the jury is out on whether Sweden is a cautionary tale or success story while the pandemic continues to reverberate around the globe.
  3. I think there may be another limitation with T cells. There is a different mechanism between antibody immunity and T Cells response that also may mean that infected individuals with the T Cell response can be re-infected briefly, and may even be infectious for a short period if they are re-infected. In other words, people who have had the virus briefly, and overcame it with a T cell response, may be able to act as a reservoir for virus at some point in the future, passing it on to vulnerable people. My understanding is that this is because T Cells only get to work destroying virus-infected cells AFTER a significant number of human cells have been taken over and are producing new virus. In contrast, antibodies can be activated as soon as the virus enters the bloodstream / mucosa and BEFORE any human cells are affected.
  4. Not sure it tells us more about the percentage of people who are having a significant T Cell response Sour Mash, but this is a nice piece of work as it is strong evidence supporting that the cross reactivity with common cold is actually happening rather than just being a speculative hypothesis. The old adage of youngsters catching a cold to boost their immunity for the future might indeed be active here...
  5. I am not sure it is as simple as this. People like me are not blaming immigrants (in themselves) for anything. I recognise the loss of well educated young Eastern European’s causes problems for their country of origin. I recognise that their arrival and integration has caused problems in their destination countries, especially where they have taken on low skilled employment. I do not blame the “EU” for this issue. I recognise that this is dominantly a result of policies decided by governments in the origin and destination countries. However, I do not like the fact that people who recognise the problems caused by this, and have seen Brexit as a potential solution, are somehow branded as having unacceptable views that they clearly do not hold.
  6. What industries? These people are referring to local jobs like the town fencer, head chef at the pub, builder’s lad and local plumber.
  7. He means that people who have got ahead in the modern world (e.g. young highly qualified people from state school backgrounds etc) will be more badly affected than those who have not (e.g. upper class wealth and unqualified, white men). I guess I do Bob8, thank you for clarifying. I agree NobodyInParticular, a reduction in opportunities for young people is indeed a bad thing. For many kids, including mine, I believe that Brexit has already led to fewer opportunities and believe things will only get worse. Especially in terms of their freedom to decide on international education and careers within Europe. However, I have talked to many people locally who think their kids will have more / better opportunities because of Brexit. And yes, they expect these additional opportunities to be local...
  8. Of course it does. People were going to the clinic, with symptoms, because they thought they had, or were likely to have had COVID-19. Here is a quote from your article. “For sure, the persons who are seeking antibody testing probably have a higher likelihood of being positive than the general population,” said Professor Nash. “If you went out in Corona and tested a representative sample, it wouldn’t be 68 percent.” This value (it is not a study) is self selecting people who are most likely to have antibodies and clearly missing people who have milder symptoms, are asymptomatic (perhaps with virus briefly, but fighting it with T cell response) or have not encountered the disease at all.
  9. I don’t. I think there will be short term hardship for all, but long term negative economic effects (and extra controls on freedoms and opportunity) will be much more pronounced for the middle class, liberal intelligentsia, and business elites.
  10. I agree. Those that recognise the severe limitations of the current government will become more angry, but will remain impotent as the populist support for Boris will continue.
  11. Actually, that is where I think I would put my long-term money if I had any. The UK has some excellent ore opportunities in the subsurface, and a combination of fewer job opportunities / cheaper labour / weaker £ post-Brexit (leading to better economics), and a government keen for activity (leading to planning restrictions lifting) might break the deadlock.
  12. Not the brexiters I talk to. I suspect it depends who the "we" is in "we gained...."
  13. Depends if that is taken into account with the statistics. One would expect one of the adjustments from the raw number is an allowance for the force positives... The ONS make it clear that they do not adjust the raw results for any false positives. They also make it clear that we do not know the specificity of the PCR test accurately enough to predict the number of expected false positives. However they state that there are a number of circumstantial / statistical reasons to believe that the results are real infections. For me, the most convincing of these is the consistent rate of asymptomatic cases. The fact that the rate of asymptomatic cases is remaining constant despite now increasing numbers of positive tests suggests that at least a significant proportion of the reported infections are real. This would imply that the actual specificity of the test is much better than 99.9%. Regardless, it means that I believe that the number of cases currently in the community in England and Wales is very low, but slowly rising.
  14. Well, I guessed you would say that. Either way only I know the truth on that (much like you for your qualifications), so that you are suggesting you would give credibility if someone had a PhD in physical anthropology and a doctoral degree in genetic medicine, that will do (whether you think I do or not!). I would like to think credibility On HPC is earned by posting things of value. In my mind Bob8 and Grayphil have done this, for example earlier on the thread. I now include you in this Arpeggio, as I think you are right to remind us we should place more value in peoples behaviour, views and actions than in any academic qualifications or titles they may have.
  15. From the ONS website. Yes, they do understand there is a risk that false positives are a significant part of the current positive test data in the community for coronavirus. No, they do not think that false positives are prevalent and believe their results are a true representation of the existence of the virus out there. However, they accept that the evidence for this is at the moment circumstantial ... Test specificity Test specificity measures how often the test correctly identifies those who do not have the virus, so a test with high specificity will not have many false-positive results. We know the specificity of our test must be very close to 100% as the low number of positive tests in our study means that specificity would be very high even if all positives were false. For example, in the period from 1 June to 12 July, 50 of the 112,776 total samples tested positive. Even if all these positives were false, specificity would still be 99.96%. We know that the virus is still circulating, so it is extremely unlikely that all these positives are false. However, it is important to consider whether many of the small number of positive tests we do have might be false. There are a couple of main reasons we do not think that is the case. Symptoms are an indication that someone has the virus; therefore, if there are many false-positives, we would expect to see more false-positives occurring among those not reporting symptoms. If that were the case, then risk factors such as working in health care would be more strongly associated with symptomatic infections than with asymptomatic infections. However, in our data the risk factors for testing positive are equally strong for both symptomatic and asymptomatic infections. The percentage of individuals reporting no symptoms among those testing positive has remained stable over time despite substantial declines in the overall number of positives. If false-positives were high, the percentage of individuals not reporting symptoms among those testing positive would increase when the true prevalence is declining.
  16. If this is Zoe, then most of the long term sequelae are "mild cough", "loss of smell / taste" and similar. So the half a million number is by no means referring to long term life changing disability. However, this is not to take away from the seriousness of the much smaller number of cases who do have such problems.
  17. These patients are unlikely to produce any antibodies at all if they have fought off the virus quickly with a T cell response. T cell response is a separate aspect of our, yes, complex and not perfectly understood, immune system. It confers a different, protection from the disease from that provided through antibodies. Neither TCell response nor the production of antibodies stop you picking up virus again, and neither stop you from briefly being able to potentially pass it on again. However, they do allow you to clear the virus quickly and easily. This is being seen as “having immunity” in the general press. This is why your “enabling herd immunity at 20%” or similar comment confuses me. To get a reasonable level of immunity from a disease with this level of contagion we will need at least 60%+ to not be susceptible to serious infection. I am not sure if it matters what portion gain resistance through antibodies vs. T cells. But it might.
  18. He has to bring home the "sovereignty". Fishing rights is just one small part of it, but is symbolic of the whole.
  19. The key point I think is that both Grayphil and CoVIs are agreed that 60-70% of people get exposed to the disease. There is no contradiction between this, and the belief that some people are able to get rid of the virus quickly without achieving a long term antibody response.
  20. I believe you may have a different understanding of “immunity” in this context to mine CoVIs. The interesting thing about all the big international cities which appear to have had high levels of COVID-19 ( such as London, NewYork, Delhi etc) is both the high level of asymptomatic cases they have recorded During the pandemic (upto 40 or 60% quoted in some papers), and the relatively low Levels of seroprevalence that is seen after the pandemic has subsided (between 15 and 25%, even in hotspots). The presence of a degree of T cell response in some of the population (who can beat the virus in less than 7-10 days and so will not get an antibody response) is one explanation for these two at first sight surprising results. In contrast, it appears that Coronavirus has scythed right through populations which might be assumed to be less well acquainted with existing cold viruses and are showing few if any asymptomatic cases and after-the-fact seroprevalence in the 60-70 percent range expected by Susceptible-infectious-recovered (SIR) modelling of the type employed by Fergusson. A recent example of this is in Iquitos in the Amazon (Peru) where 71% seroprevalence has been reported (as yet not peer reviewed). In both cases, however, we may be approaching a level of herd resistance to further infection, at least in the short term. (avoiding the term immunity in case you require antibodies for this definition).
  21. There are very few, if any, scientists who believe that this virus will be eradicated from the global human population any time soon. It is more likely to become an endemic problem that we control (by public health measures), and treat (with increasing effectiveness, as treatments improve and successful vaccines become generally available and their use widespread). Also, I am concerned by the use of the phrase "between waves". There are thousands of new infections in Britain every day at present (although less than 1000 of these are actually found through testing) and we are still getting 70-odd dead every day. The virus is still very much out there so wave 1 is not yet over...
  22. Poor kids,, will they make the kids take the tests at random points? The test doesn't feel nice at all, poor little buggers Sweden didn't test the Kids! There is no intention of widespread use of PCR testing for pupils as far as I am aware. Only testing when identified through track and trace Of direct symptoms. I also do not believe that the whole year group will be tested when one Or more pupil testA positive, just sent home for a week or so.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.