Something doesn't add up to me

[Greysparkles]

If the virus is as contagious as claimed by some, as in you'll catch it from sitting on the same patch of grass someone else has, or just walking through where someone sneezed earlier.

Why haven't more of us got it??

@Smurfworn. That was pretty much my mindset. As soon as they announced the end of containment I decided I just needed to face it. Statistically my family had good odds and if there were going to be special free passes we certainly didn’t deserve one. I saw it as my duty to take the hit for my species and so I didn’t try not to get it, it was remarkably easy to contract, my greatest fear was the part I was unknowingly infectious and passing it to the wrong person. All went as well as could have been expected. If my dm and those like her are ever going to get their life back some people need to get it, everyone can’t hide.

"If we go the way of Germany and need "immunity certificates" to get back to work, I will ask people to cough on me if it turns out I haven't already had it."

I might get to the point where I feel like that too. But it's not about not ever getting it, it's about not all of us getting it at once before our hospitals are prepared.

The figure of deaths for U.K. don’t include those deaths in nursing home, which they reckon are about 40% so falsely reducing numbers

@frumpety I think they refer to deaths not considered as ‘excess’ to be those most likely to have occurred within 12 months regardless of Contracting covid 19

Deelish75 asked about the study which claimed 50% of the population could have already had it. This was another modelling study (where epidemiologists and mathematical modellers come up with some hypotheses, 'model' these within a particular population, and see how well those numbers match what is seen in a real population: www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/26/virus-infection-data-coronavirus-modelling
It has been suggested that this is not likely to be the true situation but, as others have said, we really won't know for a long while, until almost everyone is tested. Also, this model was published several weeks ago, when the world had less information.

In contrast, a recent survey of a badly-affected German town showed that only a small portion of the citizens were infected: www.spectator.co.uk/article/covid-antibody-test-in-german-town-shows-15-per-cent-infection-rate-0-4pc-death-rate

We need to remember, that a period of 3 weeks represents nearly a quarter of the total time scientists have been investigating this virus, so our rate of learning new facts about it is extremely rapid.

I have another health condition which can flare up randomly and be life threatening. You can learn to live with this situation, focusing on what is with your control, it isn;t easy but I guess it means in this situation keeping generally healthy and fit and eating well etc, trying to take care with those around with health conditions making them more vulnerable etc, but there are limits.

@Feodora the WHO made their initial call based on research thus far, but there’s not actually a huge amount of evidence. The key studies are covered in the article you link.

WHO claimed the studies of viral rna do not indicate the virus was ‘viable’ and ‘transmissible’ by aerosol. But as Ben Cowling, epidemiologist university of Hong Kong, pointed out ‘there wasn't a lot of evidence put forward to support the assessment and an absence of evidence does not mean SARS-CoV-2 is not airborne.’

Experts in respiratory illness and aerosols say that definitive answer will take a long time.

LeVasseur (an epidemoolgist) has one opinion, Lidia Morawska, aerosol scientist at the Queensland University of Technology, has another: ‘In the mind of scientists working on this, there’s absolutely no doubt that the virus spreads in the air.’... ‘This is a no-brainer.’ While Kimberly Prather, aerosol chemist at University of California said: ‘I’m relieved to see aerosolization is accepted... This added airborne pathway helps explain why it is spreading so fast.’

I don’t think the question of whether the virus is airborne has been conclusively answered yet - the key issues being whether the viral rna is viable and if so what exposure time would be needed.

If the virus is as contagious as claimed by some, as in you'll catch it from sitting on the same patch of grass someone else has, or just walking through where someone sneezed earlier.

Why haven't more of us got it??

The lesson here is not to take epidemiological guidance from Tracey the MLM-bot on facebook, whatever bizarre scenarios she coins to justify her latest copy-and-paste of "stay the fuck at home". It isn't that contagious. Research suggests so far that under normal conditions (i.e pre-lockdown, pre-social distancing, etc), each infected person would have passed it to between 2 and 4 people between becoming contagious and recovering.

If each of those 2 people passes it on to 2 people and then they pass it to 2 people, you get into a bad situation with a lot of people infected within a month or so. We saw that in China, we saw that in Italy.

Nevertheless, evidence suggests that it is not super-contagious.

A lot of the coverage doesn't evaluate risk well at all. Stuff about wiping down your shopping or your post etc is just... I mean I guess it's not doing any harm but it's not actually a sensible intervention. Just because you can find evidence of a virus on a surface after n hours doesn't mean there's a high risk of getting infected through that vector. There are so many defenses between your system and a virus! Your major risk is sustained (10 mins, say) close contact (under 2m, say) with an infected person (who is shedding thousands of viruses all the time).

It's a bit like the media advising we all drive at 10 miles an hour because clowns might jump out at us, and putting this on the same level of risk as drink driving or speeding. Clowns do exist and some probably have caused car accidents, but structuring our lives around this possibility is not wise.

Anyway, don't pay attention to this post either because don't take your medical advice from social media!! (I have received so many lectures on infection control in the past few weeks. It's a very weird experience for someone who has studied infection control and building design strategies in the domestic setting for 15 years. )

This 'some people develop it and some never do' does happen with other diseases. For example when a woman has a smear test abnormal pre-cancerous cells may be found. They are usually removed incase they develop into cervical cancer. However, left alone, they might remain pre-cancerous for a number of years and then revert to normal in many women or might become cancerous in others, in some they will become cancerous more quickly. Sometimes a colposcopy clinic will look at them and wait 6 months to see if they change further before deciding what to do.
Research is suggesting the same is true with some changes in breast cells and that some women are treated aggressively when they need not be.

OP are you saying that:

Either

it is not as contagious as they say, and that’s why only a relatively small number of people have it (in which case we should panic a lot less about sitting on benches etc)

OR

It is highly contagious, most of us have had it already, in which case it is a lot less dangerous in terms of mortality than has been suggested

I guess it’s impossible for both statements to be true. Yet that’s what we are being told.

All this is really just lack of information

How can politicians make decisions with such lack of information

You are right, something does not add up

But what is the solution?!

That’s not really accurate. ‘Science so far’ has produced a number of studies internationally on both sides of the argument regarding airborne transmission.

@TatianaBis, that is why I used the word ‘could’. Probably should have used the word may. Agree the results in studies done up until this point on different aspects of the virus don’t all match. As you said arguments on both sides including on airborne transmission. I am reading it on airborne transmission some studies, not all, are suggesting it may occur very rarely but in due course the science may become clearer on whether that is true.

This virus is very much like schrodinger's cat isnt it. Because we dont know thath much about it it is currently many competing things at once

Quartz, yes , that’s a good comparison

It therefore has to be treated as both

But the side effects are chilling, I felt surges of anxiety on behalf of cancer patients whose treatments have been postponed for 12 weeks

I’d be besides myself

There was some new analysis/modelling released in the last couple of days that suggested it could be much more contagious than thought initially - it was based on Wuhan and came up with alternative r0 values which were 2-3 times higher than the previously suggested 2.something

So it may be more contagious than we think

It is very much schrodinger's virus

The length of this thread just reinforces the fact that it is raising more and more questions. Why are we allowing incoming flights but quarantine ships? Why are we told to observe the 2 metre distance but told we cannot meet up with anyone outside of our household when we can safely do so, observing the 2 metre distance? Why are police yelling at walkers that 'this isn't a holiday', when , Yes It Is'. It's Easter! When they are just out walking in the park, observing social distancing? Why are they being told to go home? This is all very sinister to me. I've never heard of such extreme measures to combat a virus and have heard reports of elderly people being pressurised into signing DNR forms.

That's all a bit contradictory. Extreme measures to save lives but want the infirm and elderly to sign DNRs? No. I don't buy it. I will observe all government guidelines but I not believe a word they say.

Also why are certain communities still congregating freely without the police intervening? We all know what I mean here. Well, it is their choice, their community and all, I know I'm careful where is shop these days but why can they do this and we cannot go to our remote areas in our cars and not see a soul? Why?

Sorry @TatianaBis, I missed your latest comment. You are right to point out the argument whether the virus could be aerolised in v limited conditions is far from conclusive at this stage.

It doesn’t add up to me either.

I feel like I’ve walked into a film halfway through, and even though I’m sat down with everyone else and laughing when they do, I’m privately going ‘wtf? This makes no sense?’

If everyone gets the virus in the next 4 weeks and the mortality rate is 1% , that equates to 650,000 deaths ( minus the 11,000 that have already occurred) , there are 141,000 hospital beds in the UK, including mental health, learning disability, maternity and day only beds. Take off say 40,00 -50,000 of people living in residential or nursing care who won't be admitted to hospital. Who decides which of the remaining 600,000 gets one of the hospital beds ?

Yes exactly and this is why it doesnt add up because we dont know we have to treat it as being everything all at once because until we do know there is a danger we get it wrong

If everyone gets the virus in the next 4 weeks

But everyone won’t get it?

What communities are still meeting without it being broken up? Who on earth would be doing this?

Yes exactly and this is why it doesnt add up because we dont know we have to treat it as being everything all at once because until we do know there is a danger we get it wrong

But we didn’t know this about Ebola or swine flu or bird flu or Spanish flu and we didn’t close the world down for them?

Ps and should have added above - and as you say not only whether it can be aerolised in certain limited conditions but also whether there would be enough of the virus to be transmissible.

frumpety that is why we have lockdown so not everyone gets it at once.