Coronavirus

[Casino]

44 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

Not for over 60's, the reduction in antibodies is very quick in this age group.

Antibodies aren't the only indicator of immunity, are they

[birch-chorley]

1 minute ago, Farrelli said:

Ok, well evidence so far suggests herd immunity is not happening anytime soon.  Until we know differently we have to control it by reduced contact, lockdowns and other methods.  It's shit but that is where we are unfortunately. 

What evidence? 

24 people have had it twice apparently, only 1 has died after catching it a second time and she was at deaths door 

what about the millions upon millions of others who have had it, surely more would have had it twice if what your saying is true 

Pie in the sky my arse, you simply can’t come to that conclusion based on those numbers 

[Farrelli]

6 minutes ago, Casino said:

Antibodies aren't the only indicator of immunity, are they

True, T cells and other things are also relevant. This is the report for Birch's information.

https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-herd-immunity-hopes-dashed-as-study-shows-covid-19-antibodies-fall-rapidly-after-recovery-12115510

[Not in Crawley]

My Mrs furlough has been extended she was pleased to hear today - selfishly, more total lockdown's please. The halfway house of tier 2/3 does nothing for us.

[Farrelli]

8 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

What evidence? 

24 people have had it twice apparently, only 1 has died after catching it a second time and she was at deaths door 

what about the millions upon millions of others who have had it, surely more would have had it twice if what your saying is true 

Pie in the sky my arse, you simply can’t come to that conclusion based on those numbers 

How do you know ? Most people don't know if they had it twice as the testing wasn't available.

[Farrelli]

11 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

What evidence? 

24 people have had it twice apparently, only 1 has died after catching it a second time and she was at deaths door 

what about the millions upon millions of others who have had it, surely more would have had it twice if what your saying is true 

Pie in the sky my arse, you simply can’t come to that conclusion based on those numbers 

You can show Helen your arse if you want but I trust her credentials more than yours.

Professor Helen Ward, one of the researchers, said the new results strongly suggest that herd immunity is unachievable. "When you think 95 people out of 100 are still likely to be susceptible, we are a long, long way from anything resembling population level protection against onward transmission," she said

[Mounts Kipper]

12 minutes ago, Not in Crawley said:

My Mrs furlough has been extended she was pleased to hear today - selfishly, more total lockdown's please. The halfway house of tier 2/3 does nothing for us.

All tier levels should have levels of support for workers, otherwise we ain’t encouraging workers and councils to come out of tier3. 

[birch-chorley]

15 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

You can show Helen your arse if you want but I trust her credentials more than yours.

Professor Helen Ward, one of the researchers, said the new results strongly suggest that herd immunity is unachievable. "When you think 95 people out of 100 are still likely to be susceptible, we are a long, long way from anything resembling population level protection against onward transmission," she said

Looking at that link, 95 out of a hundred are still susceptible to it, however 94 of them didn’t have it in the first place, of the 6 that have previously had it, only 1 is no longer showing an antibody (yet still might be better immune) 

So using those same numbers, if 60 people in 100 would have had it in March, then 50 would still have an antibody now and we would have a decent chance at herd immunity through the Winter months 

Hardly a compelling case to say ‘it’s pie in the sky’ 

I also don’t think anyone is saying herd immunity is a long term strategy, more of a short term one to bridge us through to a vaccine. Rather than burning the economy down 

 

Edited November 2, 2020 by birch-chorley

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Farrelli said:

Hard to tell with you, I could take most of your posts with a large pinch of salt.

How is it looking regarding Sturgeon and Drakeford lockdowns a few weeks ago ? According to you and Mounts they were mad but now Boris is doing the same thing but for a longer period (late as usual).

They are all wrong, in my view

doubtless Sturgeon will be cheesed off because Boris got there before her!

”late as usual” is an opinion that I disagree with, as I don’t think a national lockdown is warranted.

Just my view and I expect I’d be risk averse if I ran the country. But, oh the consequences 

[Ani]

6 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

Looking at that link, 95 out of a hundred are still susceptible to it, however 94 of them didn’t have it in the first place, of the 6 that had it, only 1 is no longer showing an antibody 

so if 60 people in 100 would have had it in March, then 50 would still have an antibody now and we would have a decent chance at herd immunity through the Winter months (using the numbers on your link) 

Hardly a compelling case to say ‘it’s pie in the sky’ 

I also don’t think anyone is saying herd immunity is a long term strategy, more of a short term one to bridge us through to a vaccine. Rather than burning the economy down 

 

Herd immunity a short term strategy ?? 
What % you think we need for herd immunity ? 

[Sweep]

19 minutes ago, Farrelli said:

You can show Helen your arse if you want but I trust her credentials more than yours.

Professor Helen Ward, one of the researchers, said the new results strongly suggest that herd immunity is unachievable. "When you think 95 people out of 100 are still likely to be susceptible, we are a long, long way from anything resembling population level protection against onward transmission," she said

I remember Mounts found some research that reckoned that up to 70% of people are likely to be naturally immune, or not be affected by it  - I mentioned this the other week,  so that's two massively conflicting reports. 

[Sweep]

2 minutes ago, Ani said:

Herd immunity a short term strategy ?? 
What % you think we need for herd immunity ? 

100% I'd have thought, or very close to it.

I know 70% is bandied about, but isn't that the number you need for the R rate to go to below 1.0, so it would eventually peter out, but folk would still be getting ill and kicking the bucket

[Mounts Kipper]

1 minute ago, Sweep said:

100% I'd have thought, or very close to it.

I know 70% is bandied about, but isn't that the number you need for the R rate to go to below 1.0, so it would eventually peter out, but folk would still be getting ill and kicking the bucket

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/herd-immunity-may-only-need-a-10-per-cent-infection-rate

[birch-chorley]

9 minutes ago, Ani said:

Herd immunity a short term strategy ?? 
What % you think we need for herd immunity ? 

From the link that @farelli just shared? Third paragraph...

It would require around 50-60% of the population to have protection against the virus so it could no longer transmit efficiently.
 

So, if 60% to 70% would have had it in wave 1, we would still have effective herd immunity now which would have seen us through Winter and into Spring 2021 with the hope of a vaccine. Clearly you’d want the 70% of people catching it to have come from the groups who aren’t vulnerable, whilst shielding the 20% who are

Edited November 2, 2020 by birch-chorley

[Sweep]

2 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/herd-immunity-may-only-need-a-10-per-cent-infection-rate

As that's quite an old article now (May 2020), I think they might have been proved wrong, especially as they are saying "many parts of the world are approaching it"  -  as six months later, it doesn't look like anywhere is getting close to herd immunity, as cases are rising exponentially pretty much everywhere.

Although, who really knows

[Escobarp]

8 minutes ago, Sweep said:

I remember Mounts found some research that reckoned that up to 70% of people are likely to be naturally immune, or not be affected by it  - I mentioned this the other week,  so that's two massively conflicting reports. 

That’s the problem for every expert opinion there is a similarly qualified expert giving the exact opposite opinion. Folk on here post it to support their own viewpoint and pass by anything that proves contradictory 

[Sweep]

4 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

That’s the problem for every expert opinion there is a similarly qualified expert giving the exact opposite opinion. Folk on here post it to support their own viewpoint and pass by anything that proves contradictory 

no they don't 😀

[Ani]

24 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

From the link that @farelli just shared? Third paragraph...

It would require around 50-60% of the population to have protection against the virus so it could no longer transmit efficiently.
 

So, if 60% to 70% would have had it in wave 1, we would still have effective herd immunity now which would have seen us through Winter and into Spring 2021 with the hope of a vaccine. Clearly you’d want the 70% of people catching it to have come from the groups who aren’t vulnerable, whilst shielding the 20% who are

70% of population is 42m. We currently have just over 1m cases confirmed. We know that is underestimated. So bump it up to 4m to help my maths. We have 10% of the 42m needed. This is 6 months after it started. You are looking at years before herd immunity works. 

[Not in Crawley]

51 minutes ago, Mounts Kipper said:

All tier levels should have levels of support for workers, otherwise we ain’t encouraging workers and councils to come out of tier3. 

They don't though do they? Even in tier 1 you can't have large gatherings so certain sectors are left to struggle. 

[Farrelli]

40 minutes ago, boltondiver said:

They are all wrong, in my view

doubtless Sturgeon will be cheesed off because Boris got there before her!

”late as usual” is an opinion that I disagree with, as I don’t think a national lockdown is warranted.

Just my view and I expect I’d be risk averse if I ran the country. But, oh the consequences 

Of course.

 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Ani said:

70% of population is 42m. We currently have just over 1m cases confirmed. We know that is underestimated. So bump it up to 4m to help my maths. We have 10% of the 42m needed. This is 6 months after it started. You are looking at years before herd immunity works. 

There was an article somewhere, I’ll try to find, which outlined that X% have T cell immunity, Y% are kids etc

 

[birch-chorley]

2 minutes ago, Ani said:

70% of population is 42m. We currently have just over 1m cases confirmed. We know that is underestimated. So bump it up to 4m to help my maths. We have 10% of the 42m needed. This is 6 months after it started. You are looking at years before herd immunity works. 

@farelli seemed to be saying that herd immunity is ‘pie in the sky’ because people will lose their immunity 

Which is probably true but I think they would maintain immunity long enough to bridge us through to a vaccine 

Your now sharing the numbers based on our strategy of lockdown / running from the virus, what would those numbers have been had we let it run? Much higher no doubt given the exponential growth, but that would have meant we would likely have had herd immunity now and through Winter until a vaccine was hopefully available in Spring 

The questions would be...

1) how many would have died in Spring getting us to ‘herd immunity’ 

2) could we have shielded many of the vulnerable in Spring whilst we were getting to herd immunity 

[mickbrown]

See William had it in April but didn't let on because he didn't want to alarm the nation.

Fuck me. 

[birch-chorley]

1 minute ago, mickbrown said:

See William had it in April but didn't let on because he didn't want to alarm the nation.

Fuck me. 

Second in line to the throne

@bolty would have been organising a vigil  

[Farrelli]

12 minutes ago, birch-chorley said:

@farelli seemed to be saying that herd immunity is ‘pie in the sky’ because people will lose their immunity 

Which is probably true but I think they would maintain immunity long enough to bridge us through to a vaccine 

Your now sharing the numbers based on our strategy of lockdown / running from the virus, what would those numbers have been had we let it run? Much higher no doubt given the exponential growth, but that would have meant we would likely have had herd immunity now and through Winter until a vaccine was hopefully available in Spring 

The questions would be...

1) how many would have died in Spring getting us to ‘herd immunity’ 

2) could we have shielded many of the vulnerable in Spring whilst we were getting to herd immunity 

I've referenced a major study on the antibody levels measured in 365k random people by Imperial College London this year.  They conclude that herd immunity is a long way off and certainly not likely on the evidence seen.  They acknowledge there are admittedly lots of unknowns and other variables. It's up to you if you believe this research is relevant or not, but I think it is. 

Please explain how you think we could maintain immunity through to a vaccine when we don't know how long this period will be and certainly don't know what level of the population have been infected ?