17 percent immunity in london but 5% elsewhere

[Keepdistance]

That's quite a large difference

Where have you seen these numbers reported?

It is a big difference but London had an earlier peak than the rest of the UK.

Where have you seen these numbers reported?

Matt Hancock in the daily briefin. They are government statistics from testing

It is a big difference but London had an earlier peak than the rest of the UK.

The urban areas outside London peaked at about the same time as London.

The findings could mean that the death rate is higher outside London

According to the Mail the figures are from the end of April/ early May. It takes 2-3 weeks to develop antibodies.

So if the Mail is right these figures don’t take account of anyone who has caught it pretty much from the peak. The rest of the country was behind London don’t forget.

I’m actually sick of nonsense stats presented without context.

London connected urban areas e.g. Manchester and Edinburgh, Cardiff and Bristol will likely be similar to London due to frequency of contact. We need to see a full breakdown.

And full information pics about when the tests took place. And how many, possibly as few as 1000

The 5% is the average.... there will be places well above that (probably Cumbria) and place well below (probably Devon).

@Teateaandmoretea

Peak transmission was before the lockdown - which is why peak deaths were in early May.

It takes several weeks for a transmission to turn into a death.

So the majority if people who had caught covid caught it by the time of peak deaths.

We know that because deaths have come down significantly.

We also know that transmissions have continued to fall because hospital admissions for covid have dropped, for London down to low double figures per day.

As it takes, typically, two weeks from transmission to hospitalisation, and transmissions will have continued to drop, that is why it is being estimated that London might already be down to low single figure transmissions per day.

Either way, is a very small number... means a lot of people still likely to get sick if people are not careful.... It seems like everyone is relaxing too much given either of these numbers.

I have no idea where the almost 1 in 5 people in London are that have had it. I'm in London, and the only friends/family that had it were in Sheffield. None of the ones in London have, unless its been so subtle, we weren't aware?

Elouera

Or they had it before it was officially here.

The rest of the country was behind London don’t forget

This isnt true. Birmingham and Sheffield were often ahead of London at first (by capita of population and at one point ahead not by capita)

The urban areas in England (metropolitan counties),Wales Scotland have been similar to London

The virus is more prevalent in these types of areas because they are densely populated and have similar large transport networks.

Greater Manchester, West and South Yorkshire are close by each other, and together have a similar population to London

The West Midlands is another area with early with high numbers.

The virus will be more prevalent in any urban area not just London.

...its really irritating when anything is "London and the rest"

As if everywhere outside London is some kind of country village

They should be looking at the urban areas outside London as well, compared with rural areas.

&According to the Mail...*

So if the Mail is right...

I’m actually sick of nonsense stats presented without context...

The numbers are not from the Mail, they, and other papers, are just reporting it

It was Matt Hancock in the daily briefing yesterday who mentioned it.

17% of what sample group, tested when, for what (antibodies?) and by whom? Reported in writing where and by whom?

@Flaxmeadow it is pretty relevant when the tests were taken don’t you think? That is the bit that was reported in the Mail as being weeks ago.

@TheLastSaola I know that, I’m not thick but it’s still going to make a difference isn’t it? Particularly in the regions which were behind the curve.

I live in Herts where many of us work in London. Loads of people I know had classic symptoms but were untested (in Feb and March).

I think gov is covering up the fact that it was widely spread in Feb and March - reason was because they ignored the warnings etc

It might mean that they did some form of surveillance testing in a representative sample in London and in some other unspecified place, and that these are the early findings.

But it means that even in the worst affected places >80% have not yet had it, so possibility of second and subsequent peaks remains high

It is based on a small sample so numbers could be significantly higher or lower but gives us an idea of the true mortality rate if you compare deaths in London vs 17% of the population. When more antibody tests are allowed a better picture should emerge, nearly everyone I know thinks they had it in March (not London) but no one got sick enough bar the nurse to get tested then

it is pretty relevant when the tests were taken don’t you think? That is the bit that was reported in the Mail as being weeks ago.

But what has this got to do with the Mail? The Mail is just reporting it

"The data is based on 1,000 tests done in late April and early May by Public Health England as part of its ongoing surveillance survey."

Public Health England will presumably have taken tests across the country and then multiplied them to account for populations.

These are people who caught the virus at it's peak spread. Which was the middle and end of March.

If you look at the graphs, there is a huge spike at this time in the rate of infection

If someone had caught the virus at this time, the end of March, antibodies would show in a test 21 days later. So the survey is actually in a good time frame but as I said, it does not separate the urban and more rural outside London

At a guess I would think places like West Midlands, Greater Manchester, West and South Yorkshire would be similar to London but because they are lumped in with "outside London" , this makes it appear that everywhere outside London is a lot lower

We need urban compared to more rural across the country

Is this not from the ONS survey? They started off with 20,000.
www.gov.uk/government/news/government-begins-large-scale-virus-infection-and-antibody-test-study

What it has to do with the Mail is this timescale isn’t written anywhere else. So we don’t know whether it’s true or not.

9 thousand people are still catching it a day. So whether the figures are from a week ago or 3 weeks ago is really highly relevant. Otherwise they are just meaningless numbers as even at 9000 a day (it was much higher mid-April) the % would be much higher.

As you say we need more numbers and more detail about area. These numbers alone are not that helpful.

I agree newgirls theyve waited to antibody test until it was reasonable that we would have high immunity.
Its almost double immunity in other EU cities.
However obviously higher deaths too and we dont know how long immunity is for. Or long term effects.

I dont think Scotland and wales would have high immunity again it would be likely to be in the towns and cities.
Bristol im not sure as it has remained low constantly but it's possible we had early infection.. But transport isnt as good. I think areas with tubes etc are going to be highest.

London is quite behind nyc though at about 25%.

I guess what might happen is every area gets peaks at different times now according to their tourism etc. Seems likely devon and cornwall and anywhere seaside etc will peak now over the summer

Adults from around 1,000 households will also provide a blood sample taken by a trained nurse, phlebotomist or healthcare assistant. These tests will help determine what proportion of the population has developed antibodies to COVID-19. Participants will be asked to give further samples monthly for the next 12 months.

So it’s 1000 and these are just initial, they will be followed up. That at least makes sense as it will later account for later infections.

But the certainty that some are recalculating fatality rates based on these initial first round results is 🤦🏻‍♀️

Thanks for that link @MrsWombat certainly a lot clearer than what had been reported in various newspapers and the dumbed down version from Hancock.

What it has to do with the Mail is this timescale isn’t written anywhere else. So we don’t know whether it’s true or not

Matt Hancock gave the information in the government daily briefing yesterday

London connected urban areas e.g. Manchester and Edinburgh, Cardiff and Bristol will likely be similar to London due to frequency of contact.

Nope. Greater Manchester at least has not really peaked... there's been a slight and slow drop over last 3 weeks but both deaths and infections are still very high in most boroughs. We haven't seen the drop-off that London has seen, and the Nightingale overspill hospital here is still in use.

We can't even get reliable numbers on infections in Manchester because two of the largest testing areas are run by private labs (emirates stadium and Manchester airport) and their data is not getting added to the NHS testing numbers for the area... so our already high number of cases per 100k population is almost certainly a massive underestimate. Public health officials and council officials with responsibility for schools etc. here are pretty furious about it because they're expected to make major decisions on completely unreliable data www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/greater-manchester-still-doesnt-know-18288943