Coronavirus may have infected half of UK population — Oxford study

[Lycidas]

‘New epidemiological model shows vast majority of people suffer little or no illness.’

www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b

Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email [email protected] to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at <a class="break-all" href="https://www.ft.com/tour" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.ft.com/tour</a>.
<a class="break-all" href="https://www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">www.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b</a>

“The research presents a very different view of the epidemic to the modelling at Imperial College London, which has strongly influenced government policy. “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” said Prof Gupta.

However, she was reluctant to criticise the government for shutting down the country to suppress viral spread, because the accuracy of the Oxford model has not yet been confirmed and, even if it is correct, social distancing will reduce the number of people becoming seriously ill and relieve severe pressure on the NHS during the peak of the epidemic.”

A glimmer of hope. They’re gonna start with the antibody testing very soon.

This paper says quarter of a million dead by end of March.
Your post is totally misleading OP. Totally
And it encourages people to ignore government advice.

Behind the Virus Report That Jarred the U.S. and the U.K. to Action

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/17/world/europe/coronavirus-imperial-college-johnson.html

It wasn’t so much the numbers themselves, frightening though they were, as who reported them:
Imperial College London.
< who advise the UK govt >
....
The report, which warned that an uncontrolled spread of the disease could cause as many as 510,000 deaths in Britain,
triggered a sudden shift in the government’s comparatively relaxed response to the virus.

American officials said the report, which projected up to 2.2 million deaths in the United States from such a spread, also influenced the White House to strengthen its measures to isolate members of the public.

www.dropbox.com/s/oxmu2rwsnhi9j9c/Draft-COVID-19-Model%20%2813%29.pdf?dl=0

Has anyone actually read the paper and the comments on the page?

Yes, sorry forgot to link in my comments above.

It still says over a quarter of a million people will die.

Only the most optimistic model is being reported. That one certainly predicts a lot less.

"the WHO can and should and will publish whatever stats it likes"

Yes, they're only the experts and Gove said we've had enough of experts

Oh wait - Boris keeps holding press conferences with 2 experts, Whitty & Valance

I'm pretty sure I either have it or have had it. The symptoms have been so mild (think mild dull headaches for a several consecutive evenings - no wine involved!) or even non-existent. Don't worry I've not left the house for over a week since the "symptoms" started.

@donquixotedelamancha I agree with your analysis, and this is why I'm broadly sceptical, the parameters just seem a bit best case estimate to me. And also I imagine London would look very different compared to say rural Scotland.

South Korea is a good example to use as they have done a lot of rigorous testing so the parameter estimates are going to be a hell of a lot more accurate.

However, I do choose my words carefully. I say the models are simplistic, not necessarily wrong!

stoned The WHO report said 40% would have "mild" symptoms, so like a cold, up to mild flu
You're one of the lucky ones
not one of the 20% who needed hospital treatment

Gupta's study states that "only" 1 in 1000 are likely to need hospitalisation - but in Italy there have been 100 deaths per 1 million - ie 1 per 10000 - less - so far - yet their health service - better than UK's has been very seriously overwhelmed - I wonder if Gupta has listened to what frontline doctors have said

Also she is relying on immunity yet other scientists have stated that there is little evidence that immunity would be effective in the short term due to mutations

Also govmts are doing the antibody tests which she has referred to to the same end and although uk has referred to months, france is still referring to a number of weeks of isolation being needed and have said dc might be back in school beginning of May.

Also, the imperial study did say quite clearly there were "assuptions" and gupta's study is the same.

I guess it is hard to know, but i feel that what govmts are doing now with a view to getting back to normal as quickly as possible is positive and hopeful.

I am not too surprised, to be honest. I am currently having a cold and nasty dry cough and I had it for the last 10-12 days. I was trying to do a bit of exercising and was completely worn out after relaxing yoga for stress. Tiredness and cough, few days ago I had slightly higher temperature. Might be COVID as well. In January, my fiance had awful pneumonia and he was recovering about 5 weeks! We weren't aware of the danger yet, so they just asked him to stay home, but no quarantine for me. GP only asked him if he was traveling to China recently. 3 members of his family- dad, brother and his daughter also had pneumonia caused by virus. They did lot of different tests and none of them actually needed antibiotics.

They say 60-80% of population will have it, so everything's possible.

Really interesting thread, thanks to the op and posters.

It’s so hard to tell with so much panic about this disease, and the who have led the charge, and their knowledge base can’t be under estimated.

However I also wonder about the lack of information on the over lap of people who would have sadly died anyway and how many are dying who would not have otherwise, Ie healthy people.

And how many of those healthy people need hospitalisation to survive this disease, or otherwise they would also die. Does any one know? I know someone posted a link to the oxford study but it’s weighty. And the Financial Times is behind a pay wall..

I do think we are doing this to protect the NHS in part, but the question is why. How many healthy people would die if they could not receive hospital treatment.

The damage to the economy is currently retrievable, we shut down for three weeks we can bounce back quickly. But at what point do we not bounce back for a very long time?

The way the government is preparing though, would indicate to me they have further info that we do not have. They are many reports of young people. Healthy people needing serious hospital treatment. If the nhs is full with people you don’t want to be picking and choosing who gets treatment. You don’t want people being left to die, because they were ill anyway, or elderly. No one wants that.

I think it’s such a hard decision for the people making these decisions to make.

Just because a high proportion of the population is infected and has no symptoms doesn’t mean that huge numbers won’t die. What an irresponsible OP.

I think this is an irresponsible post.
No one has ever denied that most people will get it mildly.
The estimate has always been that with no action half a million people will die. This paper makes assumptions criticised in the comments on the document that reduces that to quarter of a million people. It is still a hell of a lot of people.

Marginal if they didn’t take extra measures this week what numbers would you expect in a few weeks?

I think the UK should take extra measures this week and next, but the indefinite nature of the lockdown is nuts and with no exaggeration is precisely the stuff that coups are made of. A pre-defined exit strategy is urgently needed.

Over 600,000 people die every year so how many of the 250k who are predicted to die of the virus would have died anyway?

There were 616,014 deaths registered in the UK in 2018, an increase of 1.5% from 607,172 in 2017. There were 3,248 deaths registered to children aged under five years in the UK in 2018; the corresponding mortality rate was 4.4 deaths per 1,000 live births, which is the lowest rate on record.22 Nov 2019

Just because a high proportion of the population is infected and has no symptoms doesn’t mean that huge numbers won’t die. What an irresponsible OP.

This is exactly the kind of mindless nonsense that we need to be stamping out.

bluntness, have a look at www.worldometers.info it has a lot of stats for each country/world comparison it might have the info you are looking for

the doctors on the fronline are not taking the view "these people would have died anyway".

All those claiming "it's just a cold" or not very serious - because of this one study, or your personal hunch

If you think that, then Boris and his government have just wrecked the economy and cost millions of people their jobs, small businesses, savings .... for nothing

And almost every other leader and government in the world - left, right, centre, democracy, dictatorship - is doing the same

And of course the WHO and almost every public health expert, epidemiologist and virologust in the world are equally deluded

Is it really likely ?

or is more likely that you are desperately seeking any justification to stop this economic carnage that is making us all poorer ?

Half a million people die in England and Wales a year from all causes - heart attacks, car accidents, suicide, strokes, cancer.
It is a total nonsense to say that the half a million people who would die from Covoid 19 without government action, would have died anyway. Of course some would, but many would not.

@donquixotedelamancha
serious symptom rate of just 0.1% I've only just skim read quickly so far but I think the 0.1% is the percentage of the population who are at risk of severe symptoms requiring hospitalisation (eg the elderly or people with underlying health conditions that put them at risk) not the percentage of people with COVID-19 that have serious symptoms. I think they have extrapolated from the number of cases of community transmission to people in the high risk category who have required hospitalisation how many people must been infected at the same time but not required treatment.

the doctors on the fronline are not taking the view "these people would have died anyway".

Well, no. That would be crass. That's the point of a statistical retrospective.

I don’t think it’s even slightly irresponsible and raises valid questions. We are allowed to discuss it.

The question of the overlap is an important one. If there is currently no spike in the global death rates in any given country, even Italy, who it seems has a large number of elderly deaths annually from respiratory illness and the worst air quality in Europe, then it’s important to question it.

The government and chief scientific officer has said yes there is an overlap but that they will look back when it’s over and work out the actual numbers, but the question of who dies with corona v who dies because of it, is one even our government has said needs answering.

This seems unlikely, unless I'm missing something? So far, according to a BBC article I just read,

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-51943612

90,436 people have been tested for coronavirus so far in the UK. Of those, there are so far only 8,077 confirmed cases. Surely the ratio of negative to positive tests would be much lower if half the population have had it.

This is one of the most irresponsible posts I have ever seen on MN. Most people simply will not understand the paper you linked to and simply read your totally inaccurate summing up.
You should be ashamed OP.

In Italy, the death rate from all causes has risen noticeably in the last few weeks

• so that's including traffic accidents, heart attacks, cancer, suicide etc -

The total deaths in the Lombardy region are about 80% above normal
No other cause except COVID

However I also wonder about the lack of information on the over lap of people who would have sadly died anyway and how many are dying who would not have otherwise, Ie healthy people.

The initial analysis of deaths in the UK has a lot of healthy people dying, surpisingly few have the serious underlying conditions which had been expected to dominate.

It really does seem that the effects of this virus vary hugely between individuals.