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.

Of course people are relishing that they can relax knowing that it is the elderly and those with pre existing conditions are the ones that die.

And the comment above about how many of these pre existing conditions are due to ‘lifestyle issues’. Honestly, have a look at the list for those who are especially vulnerable. No one asks to be born with a malfunctioning organ or develop cancer.

In any scientific field:

Until a paper has been fully peer-reviewed by reputable professionals in that field, we should not trust the data or conclusions,

• especially if they are at variance with what almost every other professional is saying

Why are people attacking? No one is saying break the rules, me and mine are complying, and fully intend to keep doing so, but we are permitted to discuss scientific opinions,

If people don’t like the discussion, they can move to another thread. If they think something is wrong or against guidelines they can report.

wow, this article is early. I thought it would be at least another three weeks before I saw the ‘but’ posts

The ‘but’ posts are of course the ones making prominent use of the word ‘but’

E.g

The virus has been a great pestilence and a scourge to many, but, did we perhaps overreact?

When this is all over, I think there is going to be a big kickback against some of the things that were done in the name of public health

@DippyAvocado I can be expected to live till my early 80's or if unlucky late 70's. Many people with my condition do. I am 50. I am also in the very vulnerable group for covoid 19.
But that is because I get a flu vaccination, have had a bacterial pneumonia vaccination and any chest infection is aggressively treated. I normally have no more than 2 weeks a year off sick. I am not at deaths door like some portray the very vulnerable group to be.

A friend has cancer and is also in the very vulnerable group. She is in her 40's and has a very high chance that she will be cured of this cancer. Most people are. But at the current stage in her treatment she is very vulnerable to covoid 19.

Of course there are people who will die within a few months who will have their life cut short by this. But it is not true that that is the vast majority of people dying. It just isn't.

Why are people attacking?

Because it's MN. The offencemongers have been colonising here for some time. CV is their wet dream.

@BigChocFrenzy EXACTLY!! If this had been a properly peer reviewed article then fine to discuss here. As it is it may not even meet basic standards for any reputable journal to publish it in its present form.

To all the people who think after their research it's mild and we are overreacting please do go and volunteer to help the frontline workers. Most of the NHS workers I know don't agree and still go in every day and could do with some help.

@BigChocFrenzy EXACTLY!! If this had been a properly peer reviewed article then fine to discuss here. As it is it may not even meet basic standards for any reputable journal to publish it in its present form.

Are you some kind of exiled tin pit dictator?

In their defense, they are merely showing that the current numbers might fit with a much lower death rate, if certain assumptions are made

Quite, @donquixotedelamancha

There is some data to suggest that there may be more asymptomatic cases than has been assumed, which could have been the real drivers of transmission.

The most important thing to take from this paper is in the title itself: Fundamental principles of epidemic spread highlight the immediate need for large-scale serological surveys to assess the stage of the SARS-CoV-2 epidemic

We need to start testing for immunity to understand the epidemic and how to combat it. We need data to refine the models.

Furthermore, we should all remember that the death rate is dependent on the ability to provide the best healthcare. Regardless of whether the death rate is much lower and half of us have already been infected, it will increase if the NHS cannot provide healthcare to everyone who needs it, either because there are not enough beds or all the HCPs are sick. We still need to stay home and slow the spread.

So it's possible half the population may have had a mild infection according to this research paper. Is that meant to be an argument for the case that the governments around the world are overreacting by shutting down and killing the economies? Take the UK that still leaves 33 million still to be infected of which how many may require intensive care, hospital treatment or just ill at home with debilitating flu like symptoms. Have you been in one of our hospital ICU's recently? I don't know how people are not seeing the scale of the situation. When medical staff are ending up in ICU themselves due to the viral load exposure?

Okay sorry I had missed that this had been published in the FT. I have never known any reputable paper be published in a newspaper as its first place. Normally scientific journal and then newspapers publish findings.

This is a political move so that the government can do less. There is no other reason to do this. It is so they can dial back the measures and let more people die.

Well, add up everyone under 60

suffering from T2 / preT2, asthma, high blood pressure, BMI over 40,
then add in those with heart or lung problems
plus some who have / had cancer or who have had transplants

Now add the age 60+ age group

This starts to look like a sizeable chunk of UK voters,
in fact a majority when you add in their loved ones who care about them

Easy to understand why no major UK political party would dare propose that the economy should come first

Even those who think the Tories are ruthless - they've shown they are not that ruthless

Sorry to repeat myself, but I haven't seen anyone respond to my post and it's bothering me because I can't tell if I've missed something obvious:

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?

I know the test isn't an antibody test so won't detect recovered cases, but it seems highly unlikely to me that half the population of the UK had recovered from coronavirus by the time the testing started.

Yes no one has ever disputed that it is a mild illness for a lot of people. No one. That is not news.

This is a political move so that the government can do less. There is no other reason to do this. It is so they can dial back the measures and let more people die.
You do realise that the FT is basically a socialist paper that does not support Johnson?

Interesting post and not at all irresponsible. Vera99 thk you for posting the ONS stats. It is vital to contextualise.
Frouby really vital issues that society has to think about

Until a paper has been fully peer-reviewed by reputable professionals in that field, we should not trust the data or conclusions, especially if they are at variance with what almost every other professional is saying

OP I think this is a very important point.

@MaggieAndHopey I totally agree. The authors of the study are making assumptions that do not stand up to scrutiny.

This is a political study. Not a scientific one.

Until a paper has been fully peer-reviewed by reputable professionals in that field, we should not trust the data or conclusions, especially if they are at variance with what almost every other professional is saying

Sure, but was imperial peer reviewed? I’ve no idea

We had a virus with very similar symptoms to C19 in our are just after Xmas on the run up to half term. We also had biblical floods and several storms which essentially locked down the county and prevented social contact. No sporting events for weeks, a lot of businesses shut and the county city was shut down for nearly a fortnight.
I wouldn’t be surprised if it was C19 but our water based lockdown and it happening in January when no one goes out due to no money and being a very rural county with low population it may have spread very slowly. Any respiratory deaths would not have flagged as still flu season and expected.
It only takes one infected person to start the virus off. It was always going to be a slow burner rurally. Less daily contacts/interactions.
We were one of the last counties to have a positive test and still very low down on the league table. We may be seeing less cases because more of the local population have already had it.
There were a lot of children off school on the lead up to half term with high temperatures and coughs. It was attributed to a virus but as is normal with healthy teenagers no need to identify.

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?

Yes, I agree. I made a similar point upthread about other countries with much larger testing regimes.

The paper is assuming that many of those had it before the test and were asymptomatic (if the optimistic model were true). For the reasons explained upthread I think that's a reach.

I haven't RTFT, so apologies if this has already been posted, but I found this interview with a leading German infectious diseases expert really puts things in perspective:

@MarginalGain Laughing at the idea FT is a socialist paper. I like the FT and am not a socialist, but no way is it a socialist paper. It is a paper focused on the economy and has excellent analysis for that.

But there is zero reason for a scientific paper that is reputable to be published originally in a newspaper. The journalists at the FT do not have the knowledge to peer review this paper and see if it stands up to the most basic scrutiny. That is what scientific journals do, and reputable ones make sure they do that thoroughly so they are not publishing every latest crankpot theory.

Personally I would rather try to extend the life of an elderly, wise, loving and peaceful human being with pre-existing medical conditions for even just a few months than guarantee the survival of someone young and healthy who is going to spread hatred, misery and bitterness in the world for another 60 years.
That's probably just me though. And as yet there is no medical diagnostic test for a worthwhile human being