Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Only 3% of the population seem to have antibodies

47 replies

Lua · 21/04/2020 11:19

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

OP posts:
midgebabe · 21/04/2020 12:27

So friends you don't think that shortage of PPE, need for emergency hospital beds and the cancelling of routine surgery is perhaps indicative of th fact that the virus as opposed to lockdown is causing problems?

PuffinShop · 21/04/2020 12:29

On a positive note, the low prevalence does suggest that it must be quite difficult to catch it from sitting on a bench that someone who had it previously sat on, or from being jogged past, or from breathing the same air as someone in a supermarket queue. Which perhaps most people knew but it might be reassuring for some.

If it was really as contagious as some people seem to think, current restrictions in most places would definitely not be severe enough to stop it becoming very widespread. In fact, it seems to be in line with what we've been told, that close and prolonged personal contact is the most likely method of transmission. Not a reason to flout guidelines or stop being careful, but hopefully can calm some nerves.

MarshaBradyo · 21/04/2020 12:31

On a positive note, the low prevalence does suggest that it must be quite difficult to catch it from sitting on a bench that someone who had it previously sat on, or from being jogged past, or from breathing the same air as someone in a supermarket queue. Which perhaps most people knew but it might be reassuring for some.

Can we draw this conclusion with the early studies but also lack of complete data on people who have it mildly and do not produce antibodies?

Lua · 21/04/2020 12:33

i definetey have friends.... you need to read my posts again... That is exactly what I am saying...

OP posts:
NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1 · 21/04/2020 12:41

3% of the population is more than 2 million citizens. We ain't got 2 million ventilators

PuffinShop · 21/04/2020 12:41

I don't know, perhaps not? It's what it suggests to me. Coming from a place with probably less than 1% of the population infected and slightly less strict restrictions than the UK, I might have a different perspective that is probably not applicable everywhere. At least I know that people who are feeling well here are extremely unlikely to have it and they've been able to trace the origins of almost all diagnosed cases, suggesting to me that the chances of just getting it randomly while out and about being fairly sensible are very low. I've been tested and I didn't have it last week so perhaps I'm feeling more relaxed than I should!

Eyewhisker · 21/04/2020 12:42

The research shows that this is complicated. A significant proportion of recovered coronavirus patients have no antibodies to the virus and that elderly patients were more likely to have antibodies than younger patients. www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-8237989/amp/Up-30-coronavirus-patients-hardly-develop-antibodies.html

This is interesting as (i) these are patients who have beaten the virus (ii) elderly patients tend to have a much worse experience than younger patients.

It then suggests that young people - who have a fatality rate of close to zero for those under 40 - can beat the virus without getting sick enough to develop antibodies. This may be due to T-cells killing the virus.

But in any case, it suggests that testing for immunity by antibodies along will significantly underestimate how many have been exposed to the virus and recover.

PuffinShop · 21/04/2020 12:45

Eyewhisker That is interesting indeed!

Lua · 21/04/2020 12:47

@Eyewhisker you are right that one possible interpretation is that we just do not develop antibodies, but that is even more alarming..... that would mean is groundhog day every day, and we are definetely stuffed to resume activities as normal....

OP posts:
Lua · 21/04/2020 12:48

@NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1 my point is that if there is this much chaos with only 3% we really can't afford to lift lockdown...

OP posts:
Floatyboat · 21/04/2020 12:50

@goingoverground

My calculations had Santa Clara IFR at 0.1%.

Obviously there is a lag time to deaths but that is less than current CFR in must places.

Floatyboat · 21/04/2020 12:51

@Lua

The 3% is not UK data you realise?

buttermilkwaffles · 21/04/2020 13:04

There is quite a lot of scepticism about the Santa Clara study, eg:
abetterscientist.wordpress.com/2020/04/19/why-i-dont-believe-that-2-5-4-of-people-in-santa-clara-county-have-had-covid19/amp/?

Floatyboat · 21/04/2020 13:13

What studies are the basis for the who claim.

I look forward to serology prevalence results from New York. I think they are starting that.

Moondust001 · 21/04/2020 13:14

This could mean that people do not develop antibodies,or that the antibodies tests are no good.
Or it could just as easily mean that this is poor science, rushed and lacking empirical and reliable data. Which is far more likely. There are more holes in the studies than a fishing net.

goingoverground · 21/04/2020 13:14

@buttermilkwaffles the Santa Clara study is being peer reviewed and revised.

@Floatyboat I'm not quite sure what data you are using or how you are making your calculations so I can't really comment. Can you give more detail? If you want, obviously. I'm not trying to be goady...

Lua · 21/04/2020 13:16

There is evidence from other studies, that are broadly in agreement (Iceland, Germany, Netherlands, etc). The % positve in this country of all tests done are also broadly aligned with exposure being bellow 10%

Yes, all the current datasets can be criticized, but if we are going to make decision we need to use the best data that we have.... if anyone has data that shows we have as much as 30% exposed, I would love to see it.

OP posts:
Floatyboat · 21/04/2020 13:37

@goingoverground

Estimated number of people in santa Clara with positive antibodies divided by number of deaths in santa clara from covid.

Floatyboat · 21/04/2020 13:43

@Lua

Surely IFR is more likely to be constant across Western countries than prevalence given widely different societal responses and density etc. If we can accurately determine typical IFR values we can infer exposure prevalence from the death count.

Just imagining all Western countries have the same exposure seems silly.

Floatyboat · 21/04/2020 14:45

Sorry the above equation other way round

lljkk · 21/04/2020 18:14

Does IFR = fatality rate?

If fatality rate = 0.8% (South Korea)
Then 17,000 is 0.8% of some-number.
some-number = about 2 million.
66 million residents in UK.
2/66 = 3%.
-> 3% of UK population have had cv19.
Which is barely anybody, especially if you live outside a major city.

Many cv19 victims are dying not on ventilators; ventilators are wrong treatment for most already frail people.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page