Herd Immunity was it viable?

[deary]

I know although controversial some are fans of the herd immunity approach.
I have to say i remained opened minded on it but didnt think it was the right approach with a new disease & limited factual science available.

However i have to say i was rather shocked to hear that estimated levels of the amount of people that have contracted Covid in the UK was only 10% in London & around 4% elsewhere!
I expected it to be a lot higher tbh.

Surely if these levels are anything like true herd immunity is really not viable.

With estimates of deaths already in the 30/40k range you surely would be looking at many times that amount?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Not sure where these estimates have come from...?

From the expert opinion I have seen, it is more likely to be 20-25% in higher populated areas and perhaps 10% in less densely populated areas.

Herd immunity for a particular area would also be impacted by the population density as well, with less densely populated areas requiring lower levels of people infected.

 

[glasshalffull]

Without a vaccine herd immunity is still eventually a big part of the solution (if there is one!) surely?
I think if we end up right back at square one after easing the lockdown we might well be wishing we had followed a different approach to lockdown?
Hopefully test, track and trace can be used to bring things more under control if the numbers do drop low enough!

 

[Loco]

I guess the point is that herd immunity has traditionally been thought of in terms of the percentage of a population that must be vaccinated to stop transmission of an infectious disease.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

Sweden has basically taken this approach, it has had 10 times the deaths of neighbours Finland and Denmark which both had very strict lockdowns. initial studies show that around 40% of the population have been infected in Swweden whereas in France it is only 6%. But saying that there has not been enough testing to confirm any statistics with any degree of certainty. Sweden culturally are also very different from the UK or france or the southern european countries or the USA. whatever the infetion rate currently is it is based on testing less than 1% of the population, and the majority of those tested are those at risk or those dhowing symptoms. So again distorted stats. I suppose the answer is we wont know until we have good data.

 

[Archibald Knox]

Herd immunity is a nonsense concept without a vaccine.
Sweden is relying on a slow rate of transmission, hopefully with R < 1 because many live in single person households and the country is not as densely populated, so the CV might eventually die away without too many deaths. But they are protecting the elderly and infirm - becoming immune is not an option for them. And they are hoping it dies out before infecting too many people, not that they want the vast majority to become infected for HI. It’s the young and healthy who are taking the risk if they want to. Individual freedom is a peculiarly strong concept for them. But it’s still a novel approach to addressing a pandemic. I think some academic wants to make a name for himself and views the whole country as his laboratory.

 

[TwelveAngryMen]

You could equally argue the opposite Archie

Without a vaccine that may never come are we going to lockdown forever ?

 

[Wizaard]

Without a vaccine herd immunity is still eventually a big part of the solution (if there is one!) surely?
I think if we end up right back at square one after easing the lockdown we might well be wishing we had followed a different approach to lockdown?
Hopefully test, track and trace can be used to bring things more under control if the numbers do drop low enough!

The same people calling for herd immunity are the ones who will protest about the invasion of privacy of track and trace. They will also be in a younger, fitter demographic that is unlikely to die from the virus.

 

[GTFsTwinBrother]

But they are hoping it dies out before infecting too many people, not that they want the vast majority to become infected for HI.

I'm relatively ignorant of the Swedish approach (in terms of why they have take this approach when so many others haven't). Have you got a link suggesting why this is the reason they are doing it this way when the virus is clearly never going to just die out?

 

[deary]

Not sure where these estimates have come from...?

From the expert opinion I have seen, it is more likely to be 20-25% in higher populated areas and perhaps 10% in less densely populated areas.

These numbers were given at a UK press conference by Sir Patrick Vallance a few days ago. Now qualified by saying that that the data was from 5 weeks ago. However since we have been in lockdown unlikely to be significantly higher even if we would like it to be

Fewer than one in six have Covid-19 antibody protection – Sir Patrick Vallance

Fewer than one in six people have any sort of antibody protection to Covid-19, England’s chief scientific adviser has said.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

 

[Macseasider]

In reality herd immunity recommenced today.

They started off with herd immunity, had a half hearted dabble at a semi-lockdown, realised it was too expensive, then reverted back telling people "be careful out there and watch yer backs folks. If you get it we told ya's all".

 

[Loco]

I'm relatively ignorant of the Swedish approach (in terms of why they have take this approach when so many others haven't). Have you got a link suggesting why this is the reason they are doing it this way when the virus is clearly never going to just die out?

Why lockdowns are the wrong policy: Swedish expert Prof. Johan Giesecke

Freddie sayers meets Prof. Johan Giesecke.Read the full article here: https://unherd.com/thepost/coming-up-epidemiologist-prof-johan-giesecke-shares-lessons-...

t.co

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Herd immunity is a nonsense concept without a vaccine.
Sweden is relying on a slow rate of transmission, hopefully with R < 1 because many live in single person households and the country is not as densely populated, so the CV might eventually die away without too many deaths. But they are protecting the elderly and infirm - becoming immune is not an option for them. And they are hoping it dies out before infecting too many people, not that they want the vast majority to become infected for HI. It’s the young and healthy who are taking the risk if they want to. Individual freedom is a peculiarly strong concept for them. But it’s still a novel approach to addressing a pandemic. I think some academic wants to make a name for himself and views the whole country as his laboratory.

Hang on.... The approach in Sweden is actually the normal and accepted scientific approach to a pandemic. It is the rest of us who are involved in the so called 'experiment'.

Oh...And the 'nonsense concept' is pretty much how we have dealt with every other respiritory virus since the beginning of time.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

These numbers were given at a UK press conference by Sir Patrick Vallance a few days ago. Now qualified by saying that that the data was from 5 weeks ago. However since we have been in lockdown unlikely to be significantly higher even if we would like it to be

Fewer than one in six have Covid-19 antibody protection – Sir Patrick Vallance

Fewer than one in six people have any sort of antibody protection to Covid-19, England’s chief scientific adviser has said.

www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk

One in six is nearly 17% of the population, which is an estimate based upon testing conducted 5 weeks ago. Those sort of numbers don't seem too out of line with the figures being put forward that I quoted above, which are based on more recent antibody testing.

Had we protected the vulnerable properly and kept schools open / allowed the young to interact, we may well have been close to immunity by now. Instead we are essentially forced to go back to the original plan.

 

[Archibald Knox]

Hang on.... The approach in Sweden is actually the normal and accepted scientific approach to a pandemic. It is the rest of us who are involved in the so called 'experiment'.

Oh...And the 'nonsense concept' is pretty much how we have dealt with every other respiritory virus since the beginning of time.

You.are.just.plain.wrong. You are saying that the “accepted approach” is that which was taken in the Great Spanish Flu pandemic of 100 years ago. Which is thought to have killed about 50 million people over two years. We have moved on since then.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

You.are.just.plain.wrong. You are saying that the “accepted approach” is that which was taken in the Great Spanish Flu pandemic of 100 years ago. Which is thought to have killed about 50 million people over two years. We have moved on since then.

I am saying that the normal and recently updated scientifcally approved approach, which has been agreed with input form leading epidemiological experts from across the globe does not involve widescale lockdown of the country and the economy. What is happening across the globe at this time is a massive experiment and has been prompted by a computer model which has been widely criticised, was not subject to peer review, has been based on highly questionable data input and equally questionable theory.

Sweden, by contrast, have implemented measures which are rested in science and resisted other more draconian meaures which have no scientific basis at all.

We are essentially in an experiment and reviewing as we go along..Chris Whitty himself has admitted as much as has Neil Fergusson insomuch as the modelling had not even considered the negative impact of lockdown on public health and associated deaths. As we have seen in the excess death figures, huge numbers of British Citzens are dieing of a range of conditions, which are not Covid 19, but directly related to the lock-down.

What was known by the scientific community was that this virus had/has very limited negative impact on the young, that we needed a strategy to protect the vulnerable, particularly the elderly in nursing homes and that respiritory viruses typically run a course, which results in collective immunity and the ultimate eradication of the virus itself, to all intents and purposes.

What we are doing is to risk extending the life of the virus or even the prospect of it becoming endemic within the community due to spreading out the process of immunity in the hope of an imaginary vaccine. Oh and we have failed miserably in our attempts to protect the vulnerable...so much so that you could be forgiven for thinking that we had actually set out to purposefully harm them.

It's bollocks and it certainly isn't the Swedes conducting an experiment.

 

[Ormergod]

When making comparisons between the deaths Finland,Denmark and Sweden experienced I think it would be important to know the sizes of care homes and the number of residents they generally have.Some countries do have more larger care homes with more residents all confined together.A virus in one of these settings could be catastrophic and account for the higher rate of deaths by comparison.

 

[Loco]

This discussion is all very black and white . There is space available in the middle, which includes test, trace, isolate to hopefully help save lives.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

Hang on.... The approach in Sweden is actually the normal and accepted scientific approach to a pandemic. It is the rest of us who are involved in the so called 'experiment'.

Oh...And the 'nonsense concept' is pretty much how we have dealt with every other respiritory virus since the beginning of time.

The population density of the UK is 280/km squared. The Population density of Sweden is 64/km squared.

 

[deary]

One in six is nearly 17% of the population, which is an estimate based upon testing conducted 5 weeks ago. Those sort of numbers don't seem too out of line with the figures being put forward that I quoted above, which are based on more recent antibody testing.

Yeah but he said FEWER not higher or even 1 in 6 so you could just as easily say it is less than 10%? Again you are saying one in 6 is nearly 17% as it simply suits your chosen herd immunity angle.
So say we all buy into herd immunity?
What about the thousands more deaths (Real people) How about controlling the next peak & the reams of people complaining at government negligence & the NHS being overwhelmed?
If it is a proven way forward why has no Country (Even Sweden) around the World actually done it?

I mean if it all went tits perhaps they could say dont blame us bifster on avftt said it was the way forward

If you can keep the R under one the virus in theory will always be manageable & may even die out?

Do you refuse to see any merit in that rather than taking an absolutely massive risk with public health?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Of course there is Loco, but assuming we accept that the virus presents a very limited risk to the general healthy poplation, how would that play out do you think?

I can understand the benefit of knowing you have the virus in order to avoid vulnerable people (like we might do with a flu), but could failing to allow healthy people to contract the disease not be counterproductive?

I mean surely our aim ought to be to eradicate the virus ?

How do we hope to achieve that through test, track and trace?

Would you say it's a holding measure to get us to a vaccine at some point? Or could we realistically eradicate through dragging the infection rate down to nothing, now that the virus has got such a hold?

If not, then what is the aim, because our natural immunity would come through exposure to the virus, rather than hiding away from it wouldn't it?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

The population density of the UK is 280/km squared. The Population density of Sweden is 64/km squared.

We've already done this... Go look at where people in Sweden actually live...Go look at Scotland...It's not as relevant as people make out..Sweden has also done signifcant testing to assess progression within population and so unless population density makes people more likely to die from the same disease, it really has no material impact.... they had over 25% having been infected at last count and expect to have reached herd immunity by the end of May.

Yeah but he said lower not higher or even 1 in 6 so you could just as easily say it is less than 10%? Again you are saying one in 6 is nearly 17% as it suits your herd immunity angle.

It could hardly be 10% really though could it, bearing in mind that London was already at 10% and lesser populated 4-5% in the early stages of the virus progression 4-5 weeks ago?

Based on that it seems pretty likely that 20-25% in densely populated areas and 10% in less densely populated areas seems eminently plausible wouldn;t you say?

And it ain't my 'herd immunity angle' it is a view expressed by several highly respected experts, based on the most recent and detailed scientific evidence & antobody testing.

 

[1966_and_all_that]

We've already done this... Go look at where people in Sweden actually live...Go look at Scotland...It's not as relevant as people make out

I know what you're saying but the UK is a very densely populated country, far more so than Sweden and I don't think that a herd ammunity approach is right for us.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

This discussion is all very black and white . There is space available in the middle, which includes test, trace, isolate to hopefully help save lives.

I would agree with you, the swedish example might work for them because of their cultural norms, single person homes, trust of government, personal responsibulity, exceptional social health care and public education systems. the Koreans and the Icelanders have done the test, trace, isolate and that has generally worked for them. The countries that have been badly affected and where the populations are suffereing have very poor and / or highly politicised governance. USA, UK, Italy, Spain, Russia. Germany has a high number of cases but a relatively low death rate, Russia is showing a low death rate currently because according to most reports it is not classifying deaths from the virus.

 

[Pool4eva]

A hundred years ago (before anyone knew about vaccines) if anyone was found to be carrying a deadly virus they were immediately isolated from the rest of society, in an isolation hospital well away from other people, most towns especially on the coasts had an isolation hospital near the docks, and any ships turning up with sickness on board were not allowed to enter until they could be taken to the isolation hospital,
Fleetwood had an isolation hospital on the river bank close to were the Wyre nature reserve is now

Testing, tracing and isolating was and still is the first step in stopping a Pandemic from spreading, its not just let it rip until we have all obtained immunity

 

[TangerineBayern]

In reality herd immunity recommenced today.

They started off with herd immunity, had a half hearted dabble at a semi-lockdown, realised it was too expensive, then reverted back telling people "be careful out there and watch yer backs folks. If you get it we told ya's all".

It certainly has Mac and it’s plainly obvious but it will never be admitted to.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I would agree with you, the swedish example might work for them because of their cultural norms, single person homes, trust of government, personal responsibulity, exceptional social health care and public education systems. the Koreans and the Icelanders have done the test, trace, isolate and that has generally worked for them. The countries that have been badly affected and where the populations are suffereing have very poor and / or highly politicised governance. USA, UK, Italy, Spain, Russia. Germany has a high number of cases but a relatively low death rate, Russia is showing a low death rate currently because according to most reports it is not classifying deaths from the virus.

I think it is way too early to talk about anything having "worked".... It's just impossible to know whether the suppression tactics will hold the virus indefinitely, whether so called succesful countries might have simply delayed the inevitable and also whether life under such a regime of snooping, loss of civil liberty and big brother is really a life worth living. It's perfectly possible that countries who have seemed to fare worse, might have simply got the worst over with and broke the back of the disease.

I suspect we may look back in a year or more and have a markedly different perspective on our interpretation of 'success'

 

[Lala]

I think it is way too early to talk about anything having "worked".... It's just impossible to know whether the suppression tactics will hold the virus indefinitely, whether so called succesful countries might have simply delayed the inevitable and also whether life under such a regime of snooping, loss of civil liberty and big brother is really a life worth living. It's perfectly possible that countries who have seemed to fare worse, might have simply got the worst over with and broke the back of the disease.

I suspect we may look back in a year or more and have a markedly different perspective on our interpretation of 'success'

Definitely agree nobody is in any position to say which approach worked best until the end of the pandemic and overall increase in death rates are known per nation. That will be at least 12 months according to the experts.
The percentage of the nation who have supposedly contracted covid is totally pointless and inaccurate also right now, due to asymptotic victims, lack of testing and no antibody tests to get a true and accurate statistic.

 

[Mr Tangerine Man]

Only a tiny proportion of the global population – maybe as few as 2% or 3% – appear to have antibodies in the blood showing they have been infected with Covid-19, according to the World Health Organization, a finding that bodes ill for hopes that herd immunity will ease the exit from lockdown.

 

[Lala]

Only a tiny proportion of the global population – maybe as few as 2% or 3% – appear to have antibodies in the blood showing they have been infected with Covid-19, according to the World Health Organization, a finding that bodes ill for hopes that herd immunity will ease the exit from lockdown.

Considering nobody in the UK has been officially tested for antibodies, and can’t request one on any legitimate level I will reserve judgement on those stats.

 

[Mexboroseasider]

The idea of herd immunity only works if you can be sure AT THE OUTSET that the death rate for those who catch it is very, very low.

So assuming that to acquire herd immunity 80% of the population have to catch it. But the mortality rate is, say, 20%. That’s a lot of dead bodies.

But if the mortality rate is, say, 0.5%, then fewer of the 80% will be dead.

But as I said we need to know the figures AT THE OUTSET to be able to judge whether herd immunity was sensible at that point.

As we still don’t know the numbers now I’d suggest the idea of herd immunity back then was absurd.

 

[Shandypants]

BREAKING NEWS: Preliminary results of Spain's seroprevalence study #ENECOVID.

>60,000 participants

Antibodies for #SARSCoV2:
5% of Spanish population
11% in region with highest incidence (Madrid)

So far from herd immunity in country with 2nd largest number of cases after U.S.

 

[Shandypants]

Spanish Antibody Study Points to 5% of Population Affected by Coronavirus

Preliminary results from a nationwide coronavirus antibody study show that about 5% of the overall Spanish population has been affected, the Health Ministry said on Wednesday, adding that results varied widely from region to region.

www.nytimes.com

If this is true and the death rate is so high it's grim.

 

[Lala]

BREAKING NEWS: Preliminary results of Spain's seroprevalence study #ENECOVID.

>60,000 participants

Antibodies for #SARSCoV2:
5% of Spanish population
11% in region with highest incidence (Madrid)

So far from herd immunity in country with 2nd largest number of cases after U.S.

I take that onboard which is why I reserve judgement until the virus has past pandemic level and we can realistically interpret the actual death percentages above the norm. And also because there isn’t an accurate antibody test available yet.

 

[deary]

Spanish Antibody Study Points to 5% of Population Affected by Coronavirus

Preliminary results from a nationwide coronavirus antibody study show that about 5% of the overall Spanish population has been affected, the Health Ministry said on Wednesday, adding that results varied widely from region to region.

www.nytimes.com

If this is true and the death rate is so high it's grim.

Your correct that doesnt look good.
In fact it doesnt look too far off what Vallance said from a few weeks ago here at Circa !0% in London & 4% in he rest of the population. Even if you add a couple of percent to both those figures lt will likely put us at less than 10% nationwide as most people in the UK dont live in London.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Your correct that doesnt look good.
In fact it doesnt look too far off what Vallance said from a few weeks ago here at Circa !0% in London & 4% in he rest of the population. Even if you add a couple of percent to both those figures lt will likely put us at less than 10% nationwide as most people in the UK dont live in London.

It doesn't look good and it seems pretty low considering the figures that ccame out of Germany. Testing in gangelt suggested antibodies were present in around 15% of the poplation, resulting in an average mortality rate of around 0.3/0.4%...This Spanish result suggests a mortality rate more like 1.1%. New York study suggested around 20% had been infected with a mortality rate of around 0.6%

I suppose one explanation might be the difference in the mortality rates in certain age groups and how the virus might have spread, though you wouldn't expect such signifcant differences would you?

It's almost like there are two different viruses, with one being more deadly than the other.

 

[Shandypants]

Your correct that doesnt look good.
In fact it doesnt look too far off what Vallance said from a few weeks ago here at Circa !0% in London & 4% in he rest of the population. Even if you add a couple of percent to both those figures lt will likely put us at less than 10% nationwide as most people in the UK dont live in London.

A fair few people are jumping to conclusions that this country infection rates are higher than they are because Karen had a sniffle in December and Geoff had a blocked up nose in January blah blah. This is fuckin serious and people taking it lightly need to smell the coffee

 

[deary]

It doesn't look good and it seems pretty low considering the figures that ccame out of Germany. Testing in gangelt suggested antibodies were present in around 15% of the poplation, resulting in an average mortality rate of around 0.3/0.4%...This Spanish result suggests a mortality rate more like 1.1%. New York study suggested around 20% had been infected with a mortality rate of around 0.6%

I suppose one explanation might be the difference in the mortality rates in certain age groups and how the virus might have spread, though you wouldn't expect such signifcant differences would you?

It's almost like there are two different viruses, with one being more deadly than the other.

There may well be differing strains of the virus floating around perhaps some are more severe?
IMHO i dont think you could in good conscience go for herd immunity unless the mortality rate was proven to be significantly lower than 0.3%. Ideally it should be lower than 0.1%.

None of the results so far unfortunately point that way.

 

[Lala]

A fair few people are jumping to conclusions that this country infection rates are higher than they are because Karen had a sniffle in December and Geoff had a blocked up nose in January blah blah. This is fuckin serious and people taking it lightly need to smell the coffee

I don’t think anybody isn’t taking it seriously? Or why have we adhered to lockdown pretty robustly on the whole.
It’s ok to point out however that there really aren’t any sure fire facts regarding statistics relating to Immunity or true infection rates right now. We have absolutely no idea what percentage of the infected have been tested, especially not when you factor in testing hasn’t been available for all, for the majority of time, also asymptotic carriers, of which we are told there are many, won’t be captured, and the basic fact there is no guaranteed antibody test available.
They are your basic case study necessities, and none of those criteria have been met.
It’s not about disputing the seriousness of the virus, but equally we have to accept that most statistics being banded about are scientifically flawed for one of those reasons or another.
Ps, if Karen’s sniffle was a subliminal dig at me it was February/ March and not December, and I ain’t rising to it tonight

 

[Shandypants]

I don’t think anybody isn’t taking it seriously? Or why have we adhered to lockdown pretty robustly on the whole.
It’s ok to point out however that there really aren’t any sure fire facts regarding statistics relating to Immunity or true infection rates right now. We have absolutely no idea what percentage of the infected have been tested, especially not when you factor in testing hasn’t been available for all, for the majority of time, also asymptotic carriers, of which we are told there are many, won’t be captured, and the basic fact there is no guaranteed antibody test available.
They are your basic case study necessities, and none of those criteria have been met.
It’s not about disputing the seriousness of the virus, but equally we have to accept that most statistics being banded about are scientifically flawed for one reason of those reasons or another.
Ps, if Karen’s sniffle was a subliminal dig at me it was February/ March and not December, and I ain’t rising to it tonight

I didn't know your name was Karen. The mythical know it all from Facebook is called Karen though
People are still of the opinion this only really affects the elderly and people with underlying health issues. That isn't the case

 

[Wizaard]

A fair few people are jumping to conclusions that this country infection rates are higher than they are because Karen had a sniffle in December and Geoff had a blocked up nose in January blah blah. This is fuckin serious and people taking it lightly need to smell the coffee

So long as you can smell the coffee you'll be ok. One of the symptoms is loss of taste and smell.

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

There may well be differing strains of the virus floating around perhaps some are more severe?
IMHO i dont think you could in good conscience go for herd immunity unless the mortality rate was proven to be significantly lower than 0.3%. Ideally it should be lower than 0.1%.

None of the results so far unfortunately point that way.

It's possible that there may be differences in the way deaths are being attributed to Covid 19 I suppose. It's possible that some Countries may have been more liberal in attributing the cause as Covid 19 when other significant contributing factors, but the difference is massive.

I don't think "Going for Herd Immunity" ought to be anyones outright objective, but rather the herd immunity ought to be achieved as a consequence of a sensible and balanced policy.

I do wonder how the mortality rate might look if you essentially adopted a policy of shielding the old and vulnerable and a more sensible policy for the under 50's...We know, for example that around 81% of the deaths are people over 70, with only 4% of deaths on a sliding age scale attributed to the under 50's.... When you consider that less than 9% of the population are over 70 and around 40% under 50, it shows how differently this virus is impacting on different sections of the population.

 

[Lala]

I didn't know your name was Karen. The mythical know it all from Facebook is called Karen though
People are still of the opinion this only really affects the elderly and people with underlying health issues. That isn't the case

Haha I’ve given my name away so many times on here I am rightly suspicious
As for the mythical know it all on Facebook, I can’t claim to have contributed as I’m not on Facebook, but maybe my reputation is trending despite that
I don’t for one minute think only the elderly are affected, I’ve been lockdown compliant, I am aware it’s a deadly virus, but still reserve judgement regarding the statistics, percentage wise, being banded about because they aren’t scientifically valid at this juncture.

 

[Loco]

The idea of herd immunity only works if you can be sure AT THE OUTSET that the death rate for those who catch it is very, very low.

So assuming that to acquire herd immunity 80% of the population have to catch it. But the mortality rate is, say, 20%. That’s a lot of dead bodies.

But if the mortality rate is, say, 0.5%, then fewer of the 80% will be dead.

But as I said we need to know the figures AT THE OUTSET to be able to judge whether herd immunity was sensible at that point.

As we still don’t know the numbers now I’d suggest the idea of herd immunity back then was absurd.

0.5% is a fair number of people.

 

[Loco]

We've already done this... Go look at where people in Sweden actually live...Go look at Scotland...It's not as relevant as people make out..Sweden has also done signifcant testing to assess progression within population and so unless population density makes people more likely to die from the same disease, it really has no material impact.... they had over 25% having been infected at last count and expect to have reached herd immunity by the end of May.



It could hardly be 10% really though could it, bearing in mind that London was already at 10% and lesser populated 4-5% in the early stages of the virus progression 4-5 weeks ago?

Based on that it seems pretty likely that 20-25% in densely populated areas and 10% in less densely populated areas seems eminently plausible wouldn;t you say?

And it ain't my 'herd immunity angle' it is a view expressed by several highly respected experts, based on the most recent and detailed scientific evidence & antobody testing.

Report from Spain is 5% with antibodies, 11% in Madrid. They've had it bad, so those results are not encouraging.

Spanish Antibody Study Points to 5% of Population Affected by Coronavirus

Preliminary results from a nationwide coronavirus antibody study show that about 5% of the overall Spanish population has been affected, the Health Ministry said on Wednesday, adding that results varied widely from region to region.

www.nytimes.com

 

[deary]

0.5% is a fair number of people.

I like most are hoping its way lower than 0.5%.
That is incredibly high for a very easy to catch virus & imo would be far from 'acceptable' Im sure the mortality rate from flu is around 0.1%

I do wonder how the mortality rate might look if you essentially adopted a policy of shielding the old and vulnerable and a more sensible policy for the under 50's...We know, for example that around 81% of the deaths are people over 70, with only 4% of deaths on a sliding age scale attributed to the under 50's.... When you consider that less than 9% of the population are over 70 and around 40% under 50, it shows how differently this virus is impacting on different sections of the population.

I get what you are saying about shielding the old & vulnerable & i am not saying that isnt without merit & certainly well intentioned . I take it you just sneak under 50? It is also perhaps easier said than done?

Say you are under 70 with a pre existing condition are you no longer allowed to go & get your shopping? You are obviously going to be at increased risk if people are actively spreading it around & social distancing is abolished. There could be millions that have to be shielded!

What about the spike in deaths of younger people that will likely come through this policy? You may think it is a price worth paying but perhaps would feel different if it was you or someone close that became one of these unfortunate 'statistics'. Families would be up in arms & not without justification.
Governments may be sued for negligence?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

Report from Spain is 5% with antibodies, 11% in Madrid. They've had it bad, so those results are not encouraging.

Yes just seen that.... Odd that Valance was suggesting that we had 10% in London and 3-4% elsewhere from testing conduted around 31 March, when the UK had only 22,000 confirmed cases. The German figures and New York figures also much higher than Spain... We should see some results from our own antibody study any time too.

What I find really concerning is how Valance apopears to have completely changed his mind about the whole immunity position. There has been no scientific change at all regarding the nature of any potential immunity yet on the linked interview (back in the day) he was assured that 60% infected would achieve herd immunity and protect from infection, yet more recently he is now suggesting that antobodies for coronaviris may only bring partial immunity.... Are these people being pressured to promote a vaccine based solution?

 

[BFC_BFC_BFC]

I like most are hoping its way lower than 0.5%.
That is incredibly high for a very easy to catch virus & imo would be far from 'acceptable' Im sure the mortality rate from flu is around 0.1%


I get what you are saying about shielding the old & vulnerable & i am not saying that isnt without merit & certainly well intentioned . I take it you just sneak under 50? It is also perhaps easier said than done?

Say you are under 70 with a pre existing condition are you no longer allowed to go & get your shopping? You are obviously going to be at increased risk if people are actively spreading it around & social distancing is abolished. There could be millions that have to be shielded!

What about the spike in deaths of younger people that will likely come through this policy? You may think it is a price worth paying but perhaps would feel different if it was you or someone close that became one of these unfortunate 'statistics'. Families would be up in arms & not without justification.
Governments may be sued for negligence?

My back of fag packet calculation suggests that infecting 100% of under 50's would result in around 8,000 deaths.. (6000 of which would be over 40). Short of locking down completely for 18 Months or more until a vaccine, I'd imagine a large proportion of these deaths are going to occur anyway.

I get where you are trying to come from with the whole 'every life is precious' routine, but if that's the mantra, then where do you stop ever? Do we lock down because one child might run in front of a car and get killed? do we stop eating food because it represents a choking hazzard?

At some point a balance is reached with a level of acceptable risk to protect our way of life...Let's face it, we have thrown millions of young lives at wars to protect the very freedoms that we are currently chucking away.

 

[Costero Poderoso]

I think it is way too early to talk about anything having "worked".... It's just impossible to know whether the suppression tactics will hold the virus indefinitely, whether so called succesful countries might have simply delayed the inevitable and also whether life under such a regime of snooping, loss of civil liberty and big brother is really a life worth living. It's perfectly possible that countries who have seemed to fare worse, might have simply got the worst over with and broke the back of the disease.

I suspect we may look back in a year or more and have a markedly different perspective on our interpretation of 'success'

agree. I should have qualified that its currently working for them but everything might change, the point I was trying to make is that the so far successful countries have had a better overall response and management at a government level either through test, track, isolate or the swedish model where cultural responsibility and trust in government still prevails.

 

[deary]

My back of fag packet calculation suggests that infecting 100% of under 50's would result in around 8,000 deaths.. (6000 of which would be over 40). Short of locking down completely for 18 Months or more until a vaccine, I'd imagine a large proportion of these deaths are going to occur anyway.

I get where you are trying to come from with the whole 'every life is precious' routine, but if that's the mantra, then where do you stop ever? Do we lock down because one child might run in front of a car and get killed? do we stop eating food because it represents a choking hazzard?

At some point a balance is reached with a level of acceptable risk to protect our way of life...Let's face it, we have thrown millions of young lives at wars to protect the very freedoms that we are currently chucking away.

Fair enough but i simply dont think back of fag packet maths should be anyway to treat public health☺.
Im not saying you lock down for 18 months or more.
Most Countries in Europe are now relaxing a little to see the impact. Surely a wait & see policy is preferable than a fools rush in one?
Lets be serious we have barely done 2 months of a rather relaxed 'lockdown'.
How far do you stop anything ever will always be a matter of opinion on any subject. Without antibiotics many would die before 40? Without Vaccines more people die, some disagree though?

Whos to say that effective drug treatment to make a massive difference & save lives will not be available in a relatively short space of time, months?


Whilst far from ideal all we actually know at the moment is that it has killed a lot of people but we can halt the spread of the virus if sensible precautions are taken.
So i advocate being sensible certainly until we have more clear evidence.

If in the future we have more reliable evidence supporting an acquired immunity approach then fair enough that may be an option but not at the moment.