| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates 08:08 - Apr 10 with 1809 views | StokieBlue |
I heard a scientist on Radio 4 discussing this study this morning:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/04/09/999015/blood-tests-show-15-of-people
Basically it's a study of the actual infection rates in a hard-hit town in Germany. There are caveats of course:
- It's one study (although more are due soon)
- It's only a smallish sample size
The small town was chosen due as it was hard hit after a mass event (carnival).
The basic conclusions:
- Only 14% of the town had been infected with C-19, less than was was thought
- This implied a mortality rate of 0.37%, about 1/6th the current German level
"To me it looks like we don’t yet have a large fraction of the population exposed,” says Nicholas Christakis, a doctor and social science researcher at Yale University. “They had carnivals and festivals, but only 14% are positive. That means there is a lot more to go even in a hard-hit part of Germany.
So possibly not great news for where we are in the progress of the pandemic. Important to stress we need more studies along these lines to get a true picture though.
SB
|  | | |  |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 09:34 - Apr 10 with 1710 views | xrayspecs |
Patrick Vallance made similar comments about how widespread the virus is in the UK at the briefing last night, he referenced studies elsewhere where the infection rate was in single figures percentage wise. He also speculated that between 30-50% of folk with Covid19 are asymptomatic. |  | | |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 09:53 - Apr 10 with 1678 views | Guthrum |
One thing which is concerning me a little is the reliability of the current tests. In the UK, we're still getting a very low proportion of positive results (21.8%), this despite only testing those in hospital with strongly suspect symptoms and those in direct contact with them in the medical profession.
Are the tests really accurate? Because if they are, that implies a low penetration of the illness even into the very sick and most exposed among the populace. |  |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 10:20 - Apr 10 with 1644 views | BlueBadger |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 09:53 - Apr 10 by Guthrum |
One thing which is concerning me a little is the reliability of the current tests. In the UK, we're still getting a very low proportion of positive results (21.8%), this despite only testing those in hospital with strongly suspect symptoms and those in direct contact with them in the medical profession.
Are the tests really accurate? Because if they are, that implies a low penetration of the illness even into the very sick and most exposed among the populace. |
We're seeing a lot of 'false negatives' with people with a strongly suggestive clinical picture(ie stereotypical symptoms, certain blood results, 'covid chests' on x-ray - see my diary for an idea of what one looks like) for various reasons, not least being poor sampling technique.
The implications for this are pretty big - potential 'negative' swabs are being moved to 'clean' areas if they still require hospital treatment. with all THAT entails. [Post edited 10 Apr 2020 10:47]
|  |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 10:24 - Apr 10 with 1635 views | StokieBlue |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 09:53 - Apr 10 by Guthrum |
One thing which is concerning me a little is the reliability of the current tests. In the UK, we're still getting a very low proportion of positive results (21.8%), this despite only testing those in hospital with strongly suspect symptoms and those in direct contact with them in the medical profession.
Are the tests really accurate? Because if they are, that implies a low penetration of the illness even into the very sick and most exposed among the populace. |
I believe the study looked for antibodies so the testing would have been slightly different, I've not had a chance to read the paper yet though.
What it does propose is that people saying that a large proportion of the population have already had C-19 might not be right and it could in fact be the opposite.
Which is worrying.
SB | | | |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 10:55 - Apr 10 with 1599 views | pointofblue |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 10:24 - Apr 10 by StokieBlue |
I believe the study looked for antibodies so the testing would have been slightly different, I've not had a chance to read the paper yet though.
What it does propose is that people saying that a large proportion of the population have already had C-19 might not be right and it could in fact be the opposite.
Which is worrying.
SB |
Or could it be that Covid-19 is far more difficult to transmit and catch than previously thought? Or, as suggested above, the testing is not as foolproof as thought and there's a few positive cases going under the radar - particularly if they're asymptomatic?
Sorry, I don't mean to sound abrupt; just trying to play devil's advocate. | |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 11:00 - Apr 10 with 1591 views | BlueBadger |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 10:55 - Apr 10 by pointofblue |
Or could it be that Covid-19 is far more difficult to transmit and catch than previously thought? Or, as suggested above, the testing is not as foolproof as thought and there's a few positive cases going under the radar - particularly if they're asymptomatic?
Sorry, I don't mean to sound abrupt; just trying to play devil's advocate. |
Probably more the latter. We're seeing in hospitals more people 'presenting as covid'than are actually testing positive for.
Some of that can be attributed to poor testing technique, unlike normal flu swabbing which is a quick dap round the nostrils and at the back of the throat, a covid swab is nasally inserted with a view to hitting the back of nasopharyngeal cavity as illustrated here:
 | |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 11:44 - Apr 10 with 1539 views | StokieBlue |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 10:55 - Apr 10 by pointofblue |
Or could it be that Covid-19 is far more difficult to transmit and catch than previously thought? Or, as suggested above, the testing is not as foolproof as thought and there's a few positive cases going under the radar - particularly if they're asymptomatic?
Sorry, I don't mean to sound abrupt; just trying to play devil's advocate. |
No problem, that's healthy debate.
This study was performed on blood tests and specifically looking for C-19 antibodies in the blood. It's a historical study looking for people who have had it already and then extrapolating from that. Have a read, it's interesting. It would likely mean that it's still easy to catch, it's just not as many people as thought had caught it.
They know fairly reliably how easy it is to catch.
SB | | | |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 11:45 - Apr 10 with 1534 views | StokieBlue |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 11:00 - Apr 10 by BlueBadger |
Probably more the latter. We're seeing in hospitals more people 'presenting as covid'than are actually testing positive for.
Some of that can be attributed to poor testing technique, unlike normal flu swabbing which is a quick dap round the nostrils and at the back of the throat, a covid swab is nasally inserted with a view to hitting the back of nasopharyngeal cavity as illustrated here:
|
I am sure that is right with regards to a lot of the testing.
This specific study was a blood test though where they looked for C-19 antibodies in the blood to see who had historically had the virus.
This gave the figures I cited which they expected to be a lot higher.
SB | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 12:01 - Apr 10 with 1509 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 11:45 - Apr 10 by StokieBlue |
I am sure that is right with regards to a lot of the testing.
This specific study was a blood test though where they looked for C-19 antibodies in the blood to see who had historically had the virus.
This gave the figures I cited which they expected to be a lot higher.
SB |
I was talking to a bloke last week who is quite involved in this sort of thing and there seems to be a myriad of tests out there and after a few seconds what he was telling me went completely over my head.
I tried to absorb what I was being told but failed, to put it bluntly (and I am happy to stand corrected) the tests being used (worldwide) are not as accurate as you might think and the pregnancy type test which tells you if you have had it is not near.
I have to repeat - I might have picked up things wrong. |  |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 12:08 - Apr 10 with 1484 views | pointofblue |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 11:44 - Apr 10 by StokieBlue |
No problem, that's healthy debate.
This study was performed on blood tests and specifically looking for C-19 antibodies in the blood. It's a historical study looking for people who have had it already and then extrapolating from that. Have a read, it's interesting. It would likely mean that it's still easy to catch, it's just not as many people as thought had caught it.
They know fairly reliably how easy it is to catch.
SB |
Thanks, the article is interesting but seems to be based on immunity being acquired once someone has had Covid-19; has that even been proven yet?
I’m still wondering why only 14% of people have caught the disease in this study? This is a blood test so is it in itself reliable? If so, does it suggest relentless exposure to Covid-19, such as living with someone with the disease so regularly being ‘dosed up’ or, obviously, treating people with the virus, results in a higher likelihood of catching the illness then passing someone in a crowd? | |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 12:14 - Apr 10 with 1467 views | Darth_Koont |
Hmmmm. Yes, that would be concerning.
On one hand, it's good to see that the infection mortality rate is way down on the case mortality rate even in Germany. But if it's not spread that far then it still keeps the overall risk around for a lot longer.
And there's also a bit of good news in that we're finally starting to see what we're dealing with. |  |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 12:16 - Apr 10 with 1462 views | linhdi |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 12:08 - Apr 10 by pointofblue |
Thanks, the article is interesting but seems to be based on immunity being acquired once someone has had Covid-19; has that even been proven yet?
I’m still wondering why only 14% of people have caught the disease in this study? This is a blood test so is it in itself reliable? If so, does it suggest relentless exposure to Covid-19, such as living with someone with the disease so regularly being ‘dosed up’ or, obviously, treating people with the virus, results in a higher likelihood of catching the illness then passing someone in a crowd? |
It has been said several times by medics, but not highlighted by press, that period of exposure is a significant factor in both incidence and, especially, severity. So, health workers are far more likely to get it, and get it bad. | | | |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 12:28 - Apr 10 with 1442 views | pointofblue |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 12:16 - Apr 10 by linhdi |
It has been said several times by medics, but not highlighted by press, that period of exposure is a significant factor in both incidence and, especially, severity. So, health workers are far more likely to get it, and get it bad. |
Thank you - which ties in with the belief that masks etc. may not have such an effect when out shopping or for walks but would in a medical setting, or if you’re living with someone who has the illness.
It also might help explain why the infection rate is quite low from those who attended the carnival, as the exposure level wouldn’t have been as high as other scenarios. | |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 12:57 - Apr 10 with 1400 views | ElephantintheRoom |
There was an interesting piece by an epidemiologist from cambridge in the same paper i think and certainly in the grauniad.... basically saying it is pointless hiding from a virus and have 90% of virus-free people in a 'lockdown' when they are just as likely to get it at the supermarket as at work is a nonsense. He forecast that 80% of the UK will have it in a year.
Also in the same papers... NZ instituted a lockdown and closed borders before there was a single death. Granted its pretty isolated anyway... but they have had one death and might even eradicate the virus without a vaccine.
Just goes to show what can be achieved by a government prepared to act in the interests of its own people. | |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 17:12 - Apr 10 with 1292 views | BloomBlue |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 12:57 - Apr 10 by ElephantintheRoom |
There was an interesting piece by an epidemiologist from cambridge in the same paper i think and certainly in the grauniad.... basically saying it is pointless hiding from a virus and have 90% of virus-free people in a 'lockdown' when they are just as likely to get it at the supermarket as at work is a nonsense. He forecast that 80% of the UK will have it in a year.
Also in the same papers... NZ instituted a lockdown and closed borders before there was a single death. Granted its pretty isolated anyway... but they have had one death and might even eradicate the virus without a vaccine.
Just goes to show what can be achieved by a government prepared to act in the interests of its own people. |
Or the way the Swedish government have put their public interest first and not instigated a full lockdown and so far infection and death rate is low. Obviously when this is all over we'll see if the WHO lockdown model or the Swedish model produced the best result? |  | | |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 23:06 - Apr 10 with 1145 views | Crock |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 17:12 - Apr 10 by BloomBlue |
Or the way the Swedish government have put their public interest first and not instigated a full lockdown and so far infection and death rate is low. Obviously when this is all over we'll see if the WHO lockdown model or the Swedish model produced the best result? |
The death rate in Sweden are 7 times as high as in Norway. Lockdown is the only way to go. |  |
| |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 13:30 - Apr 11 with 1002 views | Bluesquid |
| Study quantifying C-19 infection rates on 23:06 - Apr 10 by Crock |
The death rate in Sweden are 7 times as high as in Norway. Lockdown is the only way to go. |
Yes but one needs to take into account that Sweden has over 1 million more citizens than Norway who are in group that are among the most vulnerable to C-19 and that is the over 65s.
https://www.prb.org/countries-with-the-oldest-populations/
You could compare Sweden to Belgium, with a similar population size and a similar number of over 65s.
Number of deceased in Sweden re C-19 is currently 887 and for Belgium it is 3,346.
Belgium went into lockdown on the 18th March. | | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
