Only 3% of the population seem to have antibodies

[Lua]

3 studies suggest similar figures www.theguardian.com/society/2020/apr/20/studies-suggest-very-few-have-had-covid-19-without-symptoms

This could mean that people do not develop antibodies,or that the antibodies tests are no good.

Given these are the fact we have, it is fair to assume it is showing the actual value that only 3% of the population has Covid19. If the economy and health systems of many countries (very much including ours) is in such state with only 3% infected , imagine what would happen if we don't prevent the spread and have15% people exposed.....

Yes we’d all love to think that loads of people have had it, but the consensus does seem to be that it’s a single figure percentage, probably low single figures.

The article also says likely in double digits in France and Germany.

This article is talking about the world population, I don't think it's about the UK at all.

Also it takes up to 28 days to develop antibodies and many people have had it very recently.

The antibody tests they started doing in China or Japan were said to mainly be faulty so initial results couldn’t be relied upon was my initial understanding

Uk has not done any studies..... so we do not know. That is the point. We can only make a decision based on actual data. This is the best we have....

We dont even have workable antibody tests so how so they know any of the figures

for those of you trying to find a faulyt with this data, can you poit out to any data?

I don't understand why this is down as another bad news story. It means the IFR may be much less than what commonly gets cited. The data from the study in America (santa somewhere?) certainly suggests that.

Given these are the fact we have, it is fair to assume it is showing the actual value that only 3% of the population has Covid19.

One difficulty is that other studies state that a low percentage do not have antibodies even though they’ve had it.

It’s difficult atm still to get a good read on the infection rate.

there are many antibodies tests that can be really expensive and done under research condition very carefully, thatcannot be expanded to the volume needed...

but again, this is the best we have....

It actually matches the data on how many people get tested, and how many are positive....

The reason why this is relevant is because people are itchy to move on, and there are some really important decisions to be made. Actual data is important (is not good or bad, it is what it is)

I see lots of people here saying tough luck, the economy needs to be rescued. But if these numbers are right the economy will be much, much more broken if we let the transmission increase.

As it is, we are loosing well trained doctors and nurses, and we have some many people out of work that it is cripling many services. People that do not have covid is not having cancer treatment, children with disabilities not having the support, peoplein abusive relationships sufffering much more.

Think about what would happen if we let it spread more. This is not about individual choices, or fears, or bravery, is about throwing gasoline in the fire...

Yeah, I've been a bit sceptical of the idea that there are really significant numbers of people who are completely asymptomatic and never even know they had it. I believe some of the cruise ship data seemed to suggest that and also that village in Italy where they tested everyone, but was this perhaps being confused with mass testing catching cases in the incubation period (i.e. people are asymptomatic at the time of diagnosis but later become ill)?

Of course mass testing will pick up a good number of early cases. But wasn't it clear quite early on that one reason this was spreading so easily was the long incubation period during which people seemed to be contagious?

I know that in my country (Iceland) there has been mass screening of asymptomatic people, the general population who have no particular reason to suspect that they are infected. The results have shown that a very tiny percentage of these people had the virus and many of the cases that were detected were just caught early in the incubation period.

This leads me to think that if you haven't been ill, the overwhelming likelihood is that you haven't had it. There is currently a trial study being done here looking for antibodies in the population of a little island off the south coast and I will be very interested to see the results.

Op I agree with a lot of what you say. We shouldn’t rush to next stage.

I’d love to get a better read on infection rate, and immunity.

The antibody rests in the worst his areas of Germany said there was more people who were non symptomatic than initially thought.

That’s positive

The other news articles I’ve seen seem to just be based on a load of data out of China that can’t be trusted

@PuffinShop I saw the iceland study. I am a scientist and am aware of the genetcs data from iceland human pop. Always thought it was a great resource,but a bit creepy.... Now I have changed my mind. It is amazing!

The weird thing, that the Santa Clara study have shown is that even when you find that many more people have been exposed than accounted for, it is still a very small proportion of the total population....

3% is exactly what I would expect based on the # of deaths in UK.

I don't really understand why this would be a surprise. There were a estimates early on base on a multiple of deaths that would give this kind of infection rate.

The surprise is not the actual number, but that this amount of chaos can be created with such low prevalence...... What will happen to the NHS and economy if we let it get to 20% next month?

What IFR are you supposing for that @llj

Has serology prevalence studies been done in high affected areas?

I think your reasoning is faulty OP. Most of the chaos isn’t caused by the (fairly low) prevalence but by the necessary precautions being taken against an increase in prevalence. We’re not shutting the shops because 3% of the population have it: we’re shutting the shops because if we don’t then 20% might get it and that would be disastrous.

I don't understand why this is down as another bad news story. It means the IFR may be much less than what commonly gets cited. The data from the study in America (santa somewhere?) certainly suggests that

The Santa Clara study suggests the opposite - that the number of people who have been infected there is much higher than had been estimated from tests of people with symptoms and that many people who had no symptoms had antibodies. However, even once you take that into account, the percentage of the population in Santa Clara that has had the virus is tiny.

The WHO statement that only 3% of the global population has been infected and we are far from reaching herd immunity is not surprising. It is what the models and data have suggested all along. The number infected in the UK is likely to be much higher than 3% though (the estimate of 10% a week ago seems likely) but still far off herd immunity.

The Guardian article is poorly written though. The headline is ambiguous, it could be interpreted as only 3% of people develop antibodies after infection. The original article has had to be amended as it didn't specify that the 3% referred to the global population rather than the UK specifically.