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)

There's no such thing as herd immunity for this. Sweden is in a very bad way now. There's also no such thing as a second or third wave. The virus is circulating all the time & less contact suppresses it.

Why are we still quoting % of population with antibodies when we know that not everyone infected is producing antibodies and that t-cells are showing to be important.

Here is a challenge to the "no such thing as herd immunity" crowd. Can you please show us one mathematical model used by any Government anywhere in the world that does not have an immunity term in the underlying set of differential equations.

@Oly4

The ons survey only looks at antibodies, it's thought these fade after 6 months (its 8 months since I had covid). There's another kind of immunity that's harder to test for that scientists think prevents us from serious disease but we can get mild symptoms, ex h is working on it and has my blood for testing currently (we are still good friends!)!

@TheEmojiFormerlyKnownAsPrince

Susceptible people in cities have had it, others were as asymptomatic. The areas that escaped the first wave have thus been hit harder.

@Delatron

Why are we still quoting % of population with antibodies when we know that not everyone infected is producing antibodies and that t-cells are showing to be important.

I have also wondered why percentage of antibodies is the only measure so far. Even if T cell impact is unknown at least acknowledge this rather than use above as definitive.

Pretty obvious in April that the initial lockdown affect on the R would have reduced it to almost nothing in the community, but covid was still absolutely raging in hospitals and care homes and that probably caused a large proportion of the deaths from mid April onwards. I know anecdotally of one cancer patient admitted to hospital with a fever in April, tested negative but tested positive 2 weeks later and subsequently died. This must have been fairly common and presumably will all come out in the eventual investigation.

@DianaT1969 ultimately a contagious virus is going to do what a contagious virus does but I think you’re right to draw attention to the restrictions that aren’t up to speed.

Masks and social distancing are making a difference and I think that’s evidenced in how slowly the death numbers have climbed this time. Our tracing leaves a lot to be desired; they’re still not contacting a substantial percentage of contacts.

I don’t think we know as much about T cells and Covid as people on this thread think we do. Of course it’s not just about antibodies but we haven’t got a reliable measure to suggest what % of people have truly had it.. or whether they have any protection in the future

But there must be sime kind of immunity building up if places that got greatly affected earlier in the year are less affected now.
I agree we do not know enough about how our bodies are reacting to the virus (antibodies? T-celll?), so measuring it is not going that well yet.

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

No, I don't have a background in mathematical science! But I would suggest the way you are confidently mashing together 'facts' and creating your own false narrative says you don't understand the most basic principles involved in reducing the spread of this virus.

The R number refers to the rate of spread.

I'm not sure where you're getting your compilations of false facts from, but really you do need to stop.

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.

What is herd immunity?

‘Herd immunity’, also known as ‘population immunity’, is a concept used for vaccination, in which a population can be protected from a certain virus if a threshold of vaccination is reached.

Herd immunity is achieved by protecting people from a virus, not by exposing them to it.

www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19

A rate has the dimensions of 1/time. R is actually the ratio of two rates, hence it is dimensionless.

Where am I getting my "false facts" from? Why, my training in mathematical science, including Epidemiology.

Just on the radio tonight the Kings College Professor of Epidemiology was saying that R was reducing because of a community build up of immunity. This isn't controversial stuff, it's the very basics of the science and embeded in the differential equations underpining the subject.

@luckylavender

There's no such thing as herd immunity for this. Sweden is in a very bad way now. There's also no such thing as a second or third wave. The virus is circulating all the time & less contact suppresses it.

By what definition is Sweden in a bad place?

Oh, the dimensionless aspects of the R number! I don't care about the dimensionless aspects of the R number.

It doesn't change the fact that all your "facts" are false.

Oh, and here is a snap of Sweden's "lower" number of cases than in the first wave, that you confidently reported; though it only covers up to mid October, I think you can get the drift:

cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/10321/6ace15fe04a648fa82d8f4f275ccb829.jpg

Despite your "training in mathematical science, including Epidemiology", you don't seem to know the difference between cases and deaths.

Here is Patrick Vallance (at 3:54) discussing immunity build up, and predicting exactly what happened in the Czech Republic.

@cbt944

Oh, the dimensionless aspects of the R number! I don't care about the dimensionless aspects of the R number.

It doesn't change the fact that all your "facts" are false.

Oh, and here is a snap of Sweden's "lower" number of cases than in the first wave, that you confidently reported; though it only covers up to mid October, I think you can get the drift:

cdn.24.co.za/files/Cms/General/d/10321/6ace15fe04a648fa82d8f4f275ccb829.jpg

Despite your "training in mathematical science, including Epidemiology", you don't seem to know the difference between cases and deaths.

Cases numbers don't allow you to compare different testing regimes.

This is why hospitalisations and deaths tend to be used, but lag by a few weeks. Other methodology is available, such as the Zoe study: covid.joinzoe.com/data

You're just talking bollocks, and then apparently forgetting the previous load of bollocks you posted. I will leave you to it.

I don't think herd immunity is slowing cases. It is a combination of changed behaviour, lockdowns and high risk areas having been infected already

I think Liverpool's decline can be down to a combination of mass testing, tier systems etc and lockdown but I think people's behaviour can change once they have more direct experience of the virus.

I'm I. Greater Manchester and despite the 100k infections a day my workplace was not affected and it was September before anyone I personally knew was infected. It is easier to believe the gift about the pandemic being a casedemic no more dangerous than flu, government being too embarrassed to admit bring wrong etc. Lots of people got tired of the lockdowns or got complacent and we know what happened next. If you were London for the first wave you might take it more seriously.

The school I worked at was hit very hard before half term with a third of staff off. My behaviour and sociKiding changed because it was clear that there is no effective infection control in schools and I didn't want to pass it on. Even though the community rate was very low in comparison if you feel threatened whether by health concerns financial consultant ncerns etc then you behave differently even before the tier system came in

There are now it 1 or 2 staff cases a week as a third of staff tested positive and maybe as many again with no/ not the accepted symtoms. People who work there are less likely to transmit for the next few months. It is probably the same for care home and hospital staff. So common avenues of infection close off to some extent. Most of my family all work from home and have not been infected.

If the government published figures by occupation we could see where most Infections occurred or how likely you are to catch it at a supermarket for example and mass test those areas. I was shopping for months in busy stores and wasn't infected and am yet to speak to a staff member who says most of them have caught covid already. Shops are rammed at the moment but I am not convinced they are hotbeds of infections.

high risk areas having been infected already

Isnt that herd immunity?

cbt944 - you don’t care what the R number is then, fine, but I can see that Starfro knows what she’s talking about and you obviously don’t.

Actually, I said I don't care about the so-called "dimensionless" aspect, which was just misdirection on Starfro's part. Not that I don't care about the R number.

But I really don't care for all the ducking and weaving and throwing sparkly scarves over a load of unacknowledged errors and easily disproven 'facts' by claiming to be an eminent mathematician, statistician, and epidemiologist. YMMV.

The vast majority of people in most countries remain susceptible to this virus. Seroprevalence surveys suggest that in most countries, less than 10% of the population have been infected with COVID-19.

That's from the WHO, re herd immunity.

The very basic SIR model equations. HIT (Herd Immunity Threshold) is defined when dI/dt = 0.

@cbt944 - a challenge for you. Find me a single Government model that doesn't have an immunity factor in the underlying differential equations. I bet you can't.

@GabriellaMontez

high risk areas having been infected already

Isnt that herd immunity?

No. As explained by the scientific experts at the WHO, as cbt944 has posted.