Scrutable

Millennie Al wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:47 am

Brightonian wrote: ↑

Sun Jul 12, 2020 8:20 pm

when I am wearing a mask I get the feeling others instinctively think "Nutter! Avoid!" when they see me.

Or it could be that others see you are being more careful and want to respect your choice by keeping away from you and only getting near to people who clearly care less.

At the beginning of March, a lively debate took place about whether Britain should pursue a strategy of "herd immunity" – allowing coronavirus to spread until so many people had developed antibodies that it no longer posed a threat to public health – or place the entire country under lockdown. As is well-known, Boris Johnson initially embraced the former, saying the public needed to take the virus "on the chin", then performed a U-turn and imposed a full lockdown on March 23.

But recent data coming out of New York reveals that this was a false dichotomy. Sixty-eight per cent of people who took antibody tests at a clinic in the corona neighbourhood of Queens received positive results, suggesting that, in this area at least, the population is already close to achieving "herd immunity". This is in spite of the fact that New York imposed one of the strictest lockdowns in the United States.

This fits with other data showing that the life cycle of the epidemic in each region or country where there’s been a viral outbreak follows a very similar pattern, regardless of whether or not a lockdown was imposed or how severe it was. For instance, if you plot the rise and fall in the number of new cases in Sweden on a graph, and then compare it to the same data in the UK, the two lines are almost identical, in spite of the fact that Sweden never imposed a lockdown. The same is true if you compare the trajectory of the virus in the 43 US states that locked down with the seven that didn’t.


In one respect, this is good news: it means a "second wave" of Covid-19 is unlikely and we can dispense with pointless social distancing measures, such as mandatory masks on public transport. The reason the number of new cases dwindles away to almost nothing after a fixed period of time – literally nothing in some regions – is probably because the majority of the population has been exposed to it, not because transmission has been interrupted by imprisoning people in their homes.

This isn’t immediately obvious because most people who catch the virus are asymptomatic, but that appears to be what’s happening. Some will have developed antibodies without knowing they had the disease, while others will have a natural immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off other coronaviruses, such as the common cold. People in that latter category will be immune even though they won’t test positive for Covid-19 antibodies. That means that the population of London is probably approaching herd immunity, even though only 17 per cent tested positive in the most recent seroprevalence survey.


But the bad news – at least from the Government’s point of view – is that this means the lockdown was unnecessary. So the loss of life that will result from suspending cancer screening programmes and postponing operations will turn out to have been avoidable, as will the catastrophic economic damage.

As it becomes clearer that the British population will soon achieve herd immunity, just as the population of Corona has, and the lockdown has done nothing to mitigate the impact of the virus, people will begin to ask tough questions of the Government. And Boris won’t be able to say we only know this now with the benefit of hindsight because he recognised the wisdom of the "herd immunity" strategy back in March. Whatever his excuse is, it will have to be better than that if the Conservatives are going to survive the reckoning.

That means that the population of London is probably approaching herd immunity, even though only 17 per cent tested positive in the most recent seroprevalence survey.

This fits with other data showing that the life cycle of the epidemic in each region or country where there’s been a viral outbreak follows a very similar pattern, regardless of whether or not a lockdown was imposed or how severe it was. For instance, if you plot the rise and fall in the number of new cases in Sweden on a graph, and then compare it to the same data in the UK, the two lines are almost identical, in spite of the fact that Sweden never imposed a lockdown. The same is true if you compare the trajectory of the virus in the 43 US states that locked down with the seven that didn’t.

TopSciencyExpertWhoKnowsEverything wrote:if you plot the rise and fall in the number of new cases in Sweden on a graph, and then compare it to the same data in the UK, the two lines are almost identical

Little waster wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:58 pm

That means that the population of London is probably approaching herd immunity, even though only 17 per cent tested positive in the most recent seroprevalence survey.

I'm surprised Toby can even hear his dreary internal monologue over the cognitive dissonance exhibited in writing that sentence.

others will have a natural immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off other coronaviruses, such as the common cold. People in that latter category will be immune even though they won’t test positive for Covid-19 antibodies.

Some will have developed antibodies without knowing they had the disease, while others will have a natural immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off other coronaviruses, such as the common cold.

raven wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:52 pm

Surely what's wrong with this sentence:

Some will have developed antibodies without knowing they had the disease, while others will have a natural immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off other coronaviruses, such as the common cold.

is that it makes it sound as if anyone who's had a cold will also be immune Covid-19.

But the 'common cold' is not one thing. It's a mild upper respiratory infection, caused by many, many viruses. Maybe something like ~15% of colds are coronaviruses, so most colds are unlikely to confer any immunity to Covid.

raven wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:52 pm

Surely what's wrong with this sentence:

Some will have developed antibodies without knowing they had the disease, while others will have a natural immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off other coronaviruses, such as the common cold.

is that it makes it sound as if anyone who's had a cold will also be immune Covid-19.

But the 'common cold' is not one thing. It's a mild upper respiratory infection, caused by many, many viruses. Maybe something like ~15% of colds are coronaviruses, so most colds are unlikely to confer any immunity to Covid.

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 5:20 pm

TopSciencyExpertWhoKnowsEverything wrote:if you plot the rise and fall in the number of new cases in Sweden on a graph, and then compare it to the same data in the UK, the two lines are almost identical

Here's UK and Sweden cases (weekly figures). I've chucked in Norway and Finland for fun.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/week ... BR~NOR~FIN

My eyesight needs testing on a drive to Barnard's Castle, but these lines do not look the same to me.

But perhaps this expert was talking about cases per population size?

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/tota ... OR~SWE~GBR

Oh, no alignment, again.

Ah, I know, he must be a mathematician, always using log scales. Daily confirmed COVID-19 cases per million people on a log scale will surely show identical lines.

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/new- ... OR~SWE~GBR

Damn it. I must be doing something wrong. Why can't I get the UK and Sweden lines to be identical? I feel such a fool.

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:20 pm

Is tomorrow 24 July?

No it isn't. What possible reason to wait?

jimbob wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:54 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:20 pm

Is tomorrow 24 July?

No it isn't. What possible reason to wait?

Because he's an idiot

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:00 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:54 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:20 pm

Is tomorrow 24 July?

No it isn't. What possible reason to wait?

Because he's an idiot

Not everyone's on next day delivery of face masks from Amazon

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:00 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:54 pm

lpm wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:20 pm

Is tomorrow 24 July?

No it isn't. What possible reason to wait?

Because he's an idiot

Not everyone's on next day delivery of face masks from Amazon

jdc wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 6:02 pm

Little waster wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 1:58 pm

That means that the population of London is probably approaching herd immunity, even though only 17 per cent tested positive in the most recent seroprevalence survey.

I'm surprised Toby can even hear his dreary internal monologue over the cognitive dissonance exhibited in writing that sentence.

But that sentence comes right after the bit why he explains how you can have herd immunity to this coronavirus by adding people with covid immunity to people with common cold coronavirus immunity. Surely there's no dissonance if you believe that a f.ckload of people have pre-existing immunity (whether that belief is itself reasonable is another matter)?

others will have a natural immunity because they’ve already successfully fought off other coronaviruses, such as the common cold. People in that latter category will be immune even though they won’t test positive for Covid-19 antibodies.

lpm wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 14, 2020 6:00 am

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 11:00 pm

jimbob wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 13, 2020 10:54 pm

Because he's an idiot

Not everyone's on next day delivery of face masks from Amazon

They sell boxes of 50 in Tescos.

So easy to say "wear a mask from tomorrow, by 24th we'll have a law in place with fines".

Little waster wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 14, 2020 8:19 am

Ah but the putative “already-immune” would have been picked up in the 17% identified by the seroprevalence study so the tricky bit remains trying to tally his own quoted 17% value with the supposed 80% of us who are now wandering around happily-unaware we have even had it.

Unless we are supposed to believe that the already-immune have some sort of antibody that can fight COVID but not the sort that turn up in antibody tests for COVID?