The Latest UK Coronavirus Study Is Surprisingly Encouraging: , The country is already well on its way to acquiring herd immunity

Hotair ^ | 03/24/2020 | AllahPundit

[TigerClaws]

29 minutes into this video contains a discussion of the study.

https://youtu.be/zIp8DxCdoBo

1. It’s a model based on guesses.

2. The projections from the model don’t match the reality of the spread of Covid19.

In short, it’s bullbucky.

[Mr Radical]

The first confirmed case here in Hertfordshire, England was publically announced back on 29th Feburary. At that time test results took up to five days and there was little awareness nor social distancing. We are seeing 139 confirmed cases today. If in those initial days each person passed the virus on to just ONE other, not the two-five being quoted, then by any sort of model we should be seeing many more than 139 today - many hundreds if not thousands. Not taking anything away from those badly affected, but my view is that the virus must already be out in the general population and many more are infected unknowingly or simply unaffected by it!

[trebb]

So...can we look to tannin as a potential tool to fight it?

Or is it the pints in the pubs instead of the tea?

[edwinland]

It’s good but I think it’s a bit of a stretch for them to describe their “results” as a “study”. It’s more like an untested projection.

All sentences in the article (and the headline) should start with “If this projection turns out to be accurate ...”

[tomkat]

Thanks for that report from England !
So you'd say that it seems as though the projected proliferation, at least there, isn't panning out ?

The statewide shutdowns going on over here are insane, not only for their gulag baby steps, but also because this bug has so far been a predominantly urban/dense population phenomenon.
The vast majority of said states' square mileage is both sparsely populated AND relatively unaffected, but with the grave misfortune of also having 'governors' with obvious statist proclivities.

Judging by headlines the last couple of days though, one begins to get the impression that folks might be wiseing up to this having been overhyped in a big way . . .

[lepton]

If the findings are confirmed by testing,

---

So, this appears to be purely a model, with no touchstone to reality yet.

Sure. Test. It’s not a new theory, but it would be great if true. Complete idiocy to base any decisions on it until you test it by testing actual people.

[lepton]

Netherlands
Confirmed: 5,560
Deaths: 276
Recovered: 2
Active: 5,282
Note, this is still very early and nearly no one recovered yet. Deaths/cases: 5.0% Recovered: 0.03%

Belgium
Confirmed: 4,937
Deaths: 178
Recovered: 547
Active: 4,212
Deaths/cases: 3.6% Recovered: 11.1%

Deaths/cases grossly underestimates the death rate as it drops simply from faster spread, and rises when the disease spread gets under control, so it is not the end-point calculation especially with the better of the two, Belgium, having uncertain results in 85% of cases. Inherent to it is the assumption that all unknown cases will survive, and as such represents a theoretical minimum to the bound for fatality rate for the known cases.

[Interesting Times]

Interesting speculation. As the author suggests, this can be confirmed or disproven by random antibody testing. Even if the disease isn’t widely distributed, it would be very valuable to know the real hospitalization and mortality rates.

[GOPJ]

Now here comes a study at the University of Oxford that poses a mind-boggling question: What if half of the British population is already infected with coronavirus? What if the percentage of infected people who need hospitalization for COVID-19 is actually teeny tiny because, unbeknownst to us, the overall infected population is actually enormously large?

The United States has the money to gather hard data on this pandemic... Choose out two states and test every person...

[lepton]

Ironically, 80% of those who are infected with COVID-19 disease have mild or no symptoms at all.

---

That is a mis-statement, based on earlier estimates of 20% requiring hospital care. But for example, in NYC, 25% are reported as requiring hospitalization, with 44% of those requiring a ventilator.

Is it a leap of logic then to quarantine those of the 20% most likely to have adverse reactions, and let the rest of the population acquire immunity?

---

Sure, if you could predict that precisely. I only buy winning lottery tickets. Who would buy the losing ones and miss out on all that money?

For the aforementioned 20% hospitalization rate, the reports say that is part of the 30% with acute respiratory distress syndrome.

[ctdonath2]

Yes. That’s the plan. Let everyone, or at least enough to drive R0<1, get sick.

You’ll notice the “it’s working!” doesn’t say how many died.

[lepton]

The statewide shutdowns going on over here are insane, not only for their gulag baby steps, but also because this bug has so far been a predominantly urban/dense population phenomenon.

---

Not entirely, but definitely predominantly.

The vast majority of said states’ square mileage is both sparsely populated AND relatively unaffected, but with the grave misfortune of also having ‘governors’ with obvious statist proclivities.

---

Yep. Governors, on the other hand, are at a state level. All kinds of examples of that. Most states have an urban and a rural area, and if the population slants urban they try to apply all of their silliness to the countryside.

Judging by headlines the last couple of days though, one begins to get the impression that folks might be wiseing up to this having been overhyped in a big way . . .

---

It is overhyped, after having been largely underhyped. I doubt we’ll get the granularity to right-hype much of anywhere.

That said, NYC appears to be a mess (in new ways).

[DoughtyOne]

I agree, and if I understand correctly, it’s based on the ‘less in danger’ group taking the hit for those of us who are in the ‘at risk’ group.

That’s not something I’m comfortable with.