OV9

It simply can’t be true, otherwise we’d see a much higher positive rate from the limited testing we are doing, especially given we’re testing those most likely to have the virus rather than just a representative sample of the population.

Yeah, that’s what I was thinking.

Quite irresponsible to be reporting such indeterminate research in this environment imo.

At least we’ve not got people saying they’re willing to die to keep the economy running yet though.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:05 pm Yeah, that’s what I was thinking.

Quite irresponsible to be reporting such indeterminate research in this environment imo.

At least we’ve not got people saying they’re willing to die to keep the economy running yet though.

America is funny.

I agree in part - although a problem with our current testing is that it only gets active virus (RNA), and doesn't tell you who has previously (even asymptomatically) had it and cleared it. This is part of the drive for serology testing they mention.

Another issue with Oxford publishing anything is that it lends more credulity to something than it is necessarily worth

The German data (high population surveillance testing) has shown the true illness / mortality rate to be much lower than we first thought (something of a relief) so if we extrapolate back from the numbers of cases in hospitals/dead at the moment then there are doubtless hundreds of thousands of infected out there as Chris Witty predicted the other week.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/t ... story.html

This is the really good bit of news at the moment - immunity and vaccination seem to be a viable strategy as the rate of significant mutation in key proteins is low.

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:05 pm At least we’ve not got people saying they’re willing to die to keep the economy running yet though.

I'd rather see some balanced or even optimistic theories/reporting as the media are top heavy with doomsday scenario's.

Beany wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:06 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:05 pm Yeah, that’s what I was thinking.

Quite irresponsible to be reporting such indeterminate research in this environment imo.

At least we’ve not got people saying they’re willing to die to keep the economy running yet though.

America is fucking tragic.

EFA

It's going to get utterly horrific over there very soon

Carlos wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:12 pm I'd rather see some balanced or even optimistic theories/reporting as the media are top heavy with doomsday scenario's.

Happy Global Pandemic News Network?

Swervin_Mervin wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:13 pm

Beany wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:06 pm

ZedLeg wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:05 pm Yeah, that’s what I was thinking.

Quite irresponsible to be reporting such indeterminate research in this environment imo.

At least we’ve not got people saying they’re willing to die to keep the economy running yet though.

America is fucking tragic.

EFA

It's going to get utterly horrific over there very soon

Unemployment leads to quite a crime increase doesn’t it, especially when everyone has guns.
When there’s a hurricane or fire approaching many residents choose to stay at home to protect their property or business as crime goes through the roof.
Glad I didn’t move there when I was younger, for one thing I’d be broke or dead by now

NotoriousREV wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:14 pm

Carlos wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:12 pm I'd rather see some balanced or even optimistic theories/reporting as the media are top heavy with doomsday scenario's.

Happy Global Pandemic News Network?

SUBSCRIBED

Explosive Newt wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:07 pm I agree in part - although a problem with our current testing is that it only gets active virus (RNA), and doesn't tell you who has previously (even asymptomatically) had it and cleared it. This is part of the drive for serology testing they mention.

I think this is the key thing - testing only picks up if you've currently got it, not if you've previously had it. It's why they're pushing for antibody tests too so they can tell.

And there are various other medical professionals who appear to back up the idea it was already smashing through the population in Jan.

Lets not forget it was doing the rounds in China in December. How many had it before it was recognised, how many died and were just labelled as Flu and/or pneumonia before it was labelled as CV? It's believed to be highly asymptomatic too (Iceland, who've done large scale testing report 50% of cases are asymptomatic)

Matty wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:53 pm

Explosive Newt wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:07 pm I agree in part - although a problem with our current testing is that it only gets active virus (RNA), and doesn't tell you who has previously (even asymptomatically) had it and cleared it. This is part of the drive for serology testing they mention.

And there are various other medical professionals who appear to back up the idea it was already smashing through the population in Jan.

Lets not forget it was doing the rounds in China in December. How many had it before it was recognised, how many died and were just labelled as Flu and/or pneumonia before it was labelled as CV? It's believed to be highly asymptomatic too (Iceland, who've done large scale testing report 50% of cases are asymptomatic)

It's difficult to know. You do look back at cases of non-bacterial pneumonia without any positive flu serology and wonder.

Another problem with the swab tests is that you can get false negatives because the cough is dry - no sputum to bring up to test properly. Serology would be very useful for this.

Explosive Newt wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:03 pm

Matty wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:53 pm

Explosive Newt wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 12:07 pm I agree in part - although a problem with our current testing is that it only gets active virus (RNA), and doesn't tell you who has previously (even asymptomatically) had it and cleared it. This is part of the drive for serology testing they mention.

And there are various other medical professionals who appear to back up the idea it was already smashing through the population in Jan.

Lets not forget it was doing the rounds in China in December. How many had it before it was recognised, how many died and were just labelled as Flu and/or pneumonia before it was labelled as CV? It's believed to be highly asymptomatic too (Iceland, who've done large scale testing report 50% of cases are asymptomatic)

It's difficult to know. You do look back at cases of non-bacterial pneumonia without any positive flu serology and wonder.

Another problem with the swab tests is that you can get false negatives because the cough is dry - no sputum to bring up to test properly. Serology would be very useful for this.

i literally typed the exact same post - word for word!!, but you submitted before me!

Rich B wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:10 pm

Explosive Newt wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:03 pm

Matty wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 1:53 pm
And there are various other medical professionals who appear to back up the idea it was already smashing through the population in Jan.

Lets not forget it was doing the rounds in China in December. How many had it before it was recognised, how many died and were just labelled as Flu and/or pneumonia before it was labelled as CV? It's believed to be highly asymptomatic too (Iceland, who've done large scale testing report 50% of cases are asymptomatic)

It's difficult to know. You do look back at cases of non-bacterial pneumonia without any positive flu serology and wonder.

Another problem with the swab tests is that you can get false negatives because the cough is dry - no sputum to bring up to test properly. Serology would be very useful for this.

i literally typed the exact same post - word for word!!, but you submitted before me!

Ah Christ do we have to call you Dr Richard B now?

speedingfine wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:13 pm

Rich B wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:10 pm

Explosive Newt wrote: Wed Mar 25, 2020 2:03 pm

It's difficult to know. You do look back at cases of non-bacterial pneumonia without any positive flu serology and wonder.

Another problem with the swab tests is that you can get false negatives because the cough is dry - no sputum to bring up to test properly. Serology would be very useful for this.

i literally typed the exact same post - word for word!!, but you submitted before me!

Ah Christ do we have to call you Dr Richard B now?

Only if you believe I even know what “positive flu serology” means!!

So for those who might end up that way, is the whole furloughing thing up to £2500 net or gross?

Antibody test available within a matter of days apparently. Potentially to be made available via Amazon and Boots. Presumably prioritsed to key workers first though.

Just a few million of them isn’t it? I reckon it’ll be sold out faster than Glastonbury tickets.