Interesting statistics analysis, age ranges

[IndecentFeminist]

This article/analysis seems to show that the infections in young people seem to have peaked and slowed, and now shifting towards older groups? There's no 💯 positive to take out of that given that vulnerability increases with age, but for those worried about schools/education perhaps the disruption may be waning?

www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8860631/amp/What-did-UK-coronavirus-graphs-presented-tonight-REALLY-show.html

The most interesting sentence in that article is, "Children and young people were the drivers of the second wave". That's a massive climb down from everything that's been said to date.

The graphs of geographical spread in England show how Essex has been shafted.

The press conferences seem to suggest that young people catch the virus but transmit to older people hence the rise in hospitalisations.

Hopefully the university quarantines can end until December when another plan will be needed so that students can return to their families safely.

The long running graphs and numbers threads have excellent analysis of all the figures.

This article/analysis seems to show that the infections in young people seem to have peaked and slowed, and now shifting towards older groups? There's no positive to take out of that given that vulnerability increases with age, but for those worried about schools/education perhaps the disruption may be waning?

My only hope with this is as we've started to introduce the new measures, and the older population tend to be less likely to be in large groups mixing (schools etc) , that it may not tear through the older population as badly as before.

That's worded badly- its early.

That's interesting. I wonder why the cases have dropped in young people.

The graphs JVT showed on tv yesterday very clearly showed this, huge drop in cases of kids aged c20 and under and rise in those aged c60+ - guess it's kids giving it to grandparents...☹️

Hopefully the cases linked to schools and unis have settled a little now

This was the most interesting thing in the press conference.

There's three possible causes:

1. They're not testing as many young people in the last couple of weeks.

1. Young people's behaviours have changed en-masse in the last few weeks.

1. Young people have passed the HIT because there was only a small residual susceptible population left after the 1st wave, and that has been exhausted. I think this is most likely and ties in with many of the models.

I think I agree with you @starfro
Anecdotally, my kids go to the biggest primary in our town. It is 3 form entry with full classes of 30 and a huge nursery. There has been 1 positive case all half term. However the school had to close a week before lockdown In March due to high absense so part of me wonders if alot of them have already had it.

Pretty much all the first year university students will have had it by Christmas. You could look at that as positive.

@notevenat20

Pretty much all the first year university students will have had it by Christmas. You could look at that as positive.

University showed just how transmissible it is and how quickly it spreads, but also how trivial it is for almost all young people (4 healthy under 20's have died from it in total in England).

This happens every year with new colds/flus being spread around the student population, and the epidemic over in a few weeks

.

This happens every year with new colds/flus being spread around the student population, and the epidemic over in a few weeks

In this case it's hard to guess how long it will take to spread fully within the student population because of the self-isolation, mask wearing and subsets of the students who are being very cautious. Also, when will the 2nd and 3rd years catch it?

But the main important mystery is whether the infected students will spread it to the rest of the city. We should know the answer in the next few weeks.

*University showed just how transmissible it is and how quickly it spreads, but also how trivial it is for almost all young people (4 healthy under 20's have died from it in total in England).

Yes definitely. I think the summer showed us this too, that it can circulate in the younger populations for months with very low hospitalisations for those ages

Yes definitely. I think the summer showed us this too, that it can circulate in the younger populations for months with very low hospitalisations for those ages

That is true but previous experience also suggests that it will eventually spread from young people to the rest of the population. Fingers crossed this doesn't happen this time.

Immunity in the young likely to be very short lived a few months. There’s also been a social media push not to get tested to avoid restrictions etc. Think % positivity would be more telling.

@Oaktree55

Immunity in the young likely to be very short lived a few months. There’s also been a social media push not to get tested to avoid restrictions etc. Think % positivity would be more telling.

How do you know this?

"Young people have passed the HIT because there was only a small residual susceptible population left after the 1st wave, and that has been exhausted."

Only 8% of the 18-24 age group had antibodies after the first wave:
www.imperial.ac.uk/news/201893/largest-study-home-coronavirus-antibody-testing/

I think it's much more likely to have spread among the sociable students rapidly this time around- so maybe immunity in that specific population.

Also antibodies maybe less important for immunity in the young.

www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(20)31235-6#secsectitle0070

[quote CoffeeandCroissant]"Young people have passed the HIT because there was only a small residual susceptible population left after the 1st wave, and that has been exhausted."

Only 8% of the 18-24 age group had antibodies after the first wave:
www.imperial.ac.uk/news/201893/largest-study-home-coronavirus-antibody-testing/[/quote]
Antibodies indicates immunity, however plenty have acquired (or possibly already have) immunity without producing antibodies.

Anecdotally lots of hospital staff (tested frequently) that tested positive on PCR tests failed to produce detectable antibodies in subsequent antibody tests. The immune system is very complex and has a range of tools, and it doesn't necessarily produce antibodies in response to infection if it doesn't need to.

www.independent.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-antibody-test-covid-19-a9567171.html

This is where models vary. Some argue only 10% have had the virus so far because they assume no antibodies = no immunity, whereas other model it at more like 30% because this is a much better fit to the hospitalisation/infection data.