R rate between 0.9-1 could this be why?

[stirling]

I'm just sitting here with absolutely no scientific background to back up my thoughts, but I'm wondering if the decrease is more to do with the spread and less to do with lockdown.
Because I'm not sure where you live but in my area and neighbouring areas that I've driven to, the streets are swarming with people, supermarkets packed, and many people I know of are ignoring the rule and visiting friends /family. Plus there's the fact that millions of children are attending school so lots of cross exposure.

The more severe lockdown in March/April which everyone took seriously didn't really have the same quick effect on the R number. I'm sure it took longer to get it down...

So was the Swedish infectious diseases guru right after all? I wonder if it would be wrong to assume that many many more people have actually had it now, and therefore no's are decreasing. I personally know of at least ten families that have had it, whereas in April not any just the tragic stories on the news /this board. I think that the symptoms changed for many (since Sept) more like cold symptoms.

Your thoughts please.

(Can I ask that there's no nastiness on this thread please? Seen too much of it this year on mumsnet. Thank you)

I would love to know more about why some people do not catch Covid even when they have been living in the same household a confirmed case e.g husband and wife sharing the same bed yet people say they have caught it at the supermarket. Why are some more susceptible than others?

@Mummabeary Thank you for your explanation, the breaks in the chains makes a lot of sense.

My husband didn't have CP until he was 29, my then 2 yr old gave it to ds who was 5mths and exbf.

more severe lockdown in March/April which everyone took seriously didn't really have the same quick effect on the R number. I'm sure it took longer to get it down

No, we have no idea how quickly it dropped then, what we do know is that deaths and hospitalisations remained high, there is however reasonable evidence that this was because of poor security of care homes and similar places where vulnerable people were able to catch it. It is possible there was the perverse situation where rates within vulnerable groups were much, much higher than the general population. It is likely that community rates fell at least as fast as now.

I agree too. A tendency to lower cases is showing up, and in several countries, so that quite points to a natural slow down in the spread (fingers crossed!).
I just pray it continues!
The only other reason I can think of is les1s testing carried out. But that would have been highlighted by someone, and it would not happen in different countries at the same time.
So or either is spreading slower or we are getting better at fighting it naturally.
Regarding the swidish no isolation approach, more populated countries with less beds and medical staff available would have not coped with that!

Could be as simple as less testing.
Also, experts estimate nearly 30% of tests are false negatives.

And because of the high number of false negatives, I'd say it will be worth keeping an eye on the number of heart attack, stroke, and pneumonia deaths over the coming weeks and months. Covid is known to cause those three conditions.

It’s not less testing, testing numbers have been at a high the last few weeks.

@Racoonworld

It’s not less testing, testing numbers have been at a high the last few weeks.

But are the government still including tests sent out but not returned and things like that? That's what they had been doing. Perhaps the way it's recorded recently changed?

Even if tests really have increased, that still leaves the issue of up to 30% false negatives.

Someone would scream and shout if it was the testing indeed.
And another countries, showing a descend in cases too.
And the areas more affected on the first wave are less affected on the second.
It points out to me to immunity starting to get on the way of this virus indeed.
I think it is another glimpse of hope indeed.

But the other countries showing a decrease, i.e. France, took stronger measures. It makes sense why their cases might be falling.

experts estimate nearly 30% of tests are false negatives

If that figure is accurate, it means up to 30% of the people who have covid get an incorrect negative result, not that 30% of all the people who take the test have covid but get a negative. I assume you're aware of this and mistyped, but just clarifying for anyone else reading.

Either way though, surely a rapid decline in positive test results still means cases are going down even if the percentage of false negatives is quite high. Unless there's a reason why the false negative rate has gone up massively in the last week or two, which I can't see why there would be, the number of positive tests should still be proportional to the number of infected people getting tested.

I have to say, even though i'm generally quite optimistic I'm a little suspicious of how suddenly the number of new infections has gone from rising steadily to plummeting. I really hope it's a sign of more widespread immunity and/or lockdown working, as we've been discussing, but I'm a bit worried that the government is once again going to 'find' a few thousand extra cases that have fallen off the end of a spreadsheet or something. (I don't think they're deliberately covering anything up, just that they're sufficiently incompetent for it to be a definite possibility!)

@TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince

Not this again.... no herd immunity you can get it more than once.

And it’s the second and third waves which are usually more deadly not the first. So the second wave is not less deadly as someone pointed out.

Can people stop spreading this stupid myth that immunity doesn't exist.

The second wave is massive if you have a tiny first wave, and vice versa. Just compare the Czech Republic (tiny 1st wave, massive 2nd) and Sweden (big first wave, small 2nd).

This is purely down to immunity.

Also London, large first wave in Spring, relatively smaller wave now. Loads of my colleagues had Covid in the Spring, very few got it this time.
Unlike other regions of U.K. where they had lower Spring wave (due to lockdown) and a larger wave in the Autumn/now.
It seems to weird to deny immunity exists in some populations. Not herd immunity obviously but some immunity having some effect on transmission.

Yep, London is another good example. Herd immunity is just when immunity builds up to ensure R

I agree. It’s so frustrating when people claim immunity doesn’t exist. 40 million people have had this worldwide. There’s only been a handful of reinfections.

New research says immunity is lasting for at least 6-8 months. That’s enough to slow the spread in places hard hit the first time.

We don’t know enough about t-cell immunity. With SARS they found it lasted 17 years...

@Delatron

I agree. It’s so frustrating when people claim immunity doesn’t exist. 40 million people have had this worldwide. There’s only been a handful of reinfections.

New research says immunity is lasting for at least 6-8 months. That’s enough to slow the spread in places hard hit the first time.

We don’t know enough about t-cell immunity. With SARS they found it lasted 17 years...

17 years or at least 17 and might be much longer, given SARS is recent?

Yes at least 17, most likely longer as time goes on.

I think t-cell immunity is key in these type of coronaviruses versus antibodies.

If that figure is accurate, it means up to 30% of the people who have covid get an incorrect negative result

It's also a very misleading figure, and there are a lot of false negatives (although 30% is almost certainly too high) but the problem comes when people test when they've been exposed, but they test too early so they are not infectious, it's not a problem with the test, it's a problem with people wasting tests and not understanding why you isolate rather than test after exposure.

The false negative rate with the 3 main symptoms is extremely low.

[quote starfro]Yep, London is another good example. Herd immunity is just when immunity builds up to ensure R

“ Lowering the R rate is achieved by limiting the spread of the virus, not by spreading it around for some mythical 'herd immunity' - that can only be achieved by mass vaccination.”

The spread of the virus can be limited by people in the population being immune and therefore the likelihood and rate of transmission. This immunity can be achieved by natural infection or through vaccination. Immunity from infection lasts 6+ months so every case is contributing towards reaching the levels required herd immunity. Vaccination is not the only way to gain immunity.

Therefore reducing*

@bumbleymummy

“ Lowering the R rate is achieved by limiting the spread of the virus, not by spreading it around for some mythical 'herd immunity' - that can only be achieved by mass vaccination.”

The spread of the virus can be limited by people in the population being immune and therefore the likelihood and rate of transmission. This immunity can be achieved by natural infection or through vaccination. Immunity from infection lasts 6+ months so every case is contributing towards reaching the levels required herd immunity. Vaccination is not the only way to gain immunity.

Exactly. It’s better to talk about the effect of immunity rather than herd immunity as people get fixated on the latter when the former can interrupt transmission chains. And therefore lower R0.

Vaccination is not the only way to gain immunity.

Vaccination is the only way to gain herd immunity.

@cbt944 No, it isn’t. Herd immunity is achieved when a certain percentage of the population are immune either by natural infection or immunisation.

@cbt944

Vaccination is not the only way to gain immunity.

Vaccination is the only way to gain herd immunity.

You clearly haven't got a clue about what you're talking about.

Firstly anyone that refers to R as a rate clearly has no background in mathematical science (it's a number, it is dimensionless).

Secondly, saying that vaccination is the only way to gain herd immunity is just simply wrong. You can argue that it is a poor strategy, but to claim it doesn't exist is just denying basic epidemiology.

Let's look at this "overwhelming" 2nd wave in Sweden. Looks pretty small to me: