So there's at least one...

[Javert]

Basing public health policy of 65 million people on a sample of one taken from an unapproved antibody test seems pretty reckless to me.



If it turns out that 30% or 50% or whatever have been infected already, this will be great news.  However for these type of things, it's best to work on the reasonable worst case scenario based on currently known data.  If that data changes, you then change your approach accordingly.



If you put all the data together from all other countries, it's still reasonable to believe that the IFR is around 1% or a bit below - of course there are some outlier studies showing different results, but we should beware of using outlier studies in a "confirmation bias" kind of way to give the result we are hoping for.



Also - as Beelbub alludes to above, the IFR itself is based on people being able to access hospital treatment when needed.  Covid-19 hospitalises a very significant percent of sufferers, and it puts them in hospital for a pretty long time on average.  If hospitals become overwhelmed, the IFR will go up because those who require hospital treatment for Covid-19 and can't get into hospital because there are no beds, a very high % of those will probably die.  (after all, why would they take you to hospital if they didn't think it was needed to save your life?).



Next, if hospitals become full, lots of people will die from other causes not related to Covid-19 because they can't get hospital treatment.



Of course, these things can all change if we find measures like

- Vaccines.

- Our data was wrong and the true IFR is only 0.00001% or something (as said above all the data so far is against this).

- We find better treatments that reduce the IFR and/or time in hospital per patient.

- We find much better testing methods like "instant" testing where you can self administer a test in just a minute or two and get the result right away.



Of course, if the true IFR proves to be much lower, there will be many on this forum and elsewhere who claim that this means the whole lockdown was a huge mistake and should never have been done.  Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but in the end this would only be the case if we could show that the data available to Sage and the government on March 23rd was showing the same thing.

[BeElBeeBub]

I still think, based on initial findings from actual antibody tests case studies and not antibody studies and data analysis, when we roll out the antibody tests we will be in line with 0.4% death rate shown in Bonn and Zurich. Which still means that if left unchecked would still cause tens of thousands of deaths of extra deaths, but if you shielded the elderly and vulnerable, as the data shows they are over 90% of the deaths, this would reduce deaths signifantly without causing a huge social, mental or economic downfall.

A possibility. The IFR is not a universal number tho. It varies with demographics, heath provision even season.



A disease with a trivially low IFR in the UK may have a much higher IFR in Somalia (an extreme example).



The Swiss study found around 10% of the Geneva pop had antibodies, which would out the IFR around 0.5%



But a large number of those infected were under 50 which skews the findings.



If you adjust for that skew the IFR becomes closer to 1%



There is definitely a potential avenue for shielding the older population to allow daily life to become more normal.



However, there is still a risk to the middle aged and the illness itself can be very severe in a significant minority with lingering after effects.



I helped a neighbour who had locked herself out a few days ago. She's in her early 30's with no other illnesses. She had a dry cough and fever in early march (she works as a receptionist in a theater so lots of face to face contact with the public). 8 weeks on she is still suffering from chest pains and fatigue.  She was due for an X ray early next month.



Given what we do know about CV19, it seems foolish to go for mitigation. We should be aiming for suppression - albeit bearing in mind how to do so with the least disruption.

[B0ycey]

I still think, based on initial findings from actual antibody tests case studies and not antibody studies and data analysis, when we roll out the antibody tests we will be in line with 0.4% death rate shown in Bonn and Zurich. Which still means that if left unchecked would still cause tens of thousands of deaths of extra deaths, but if you shielded the elderly and vulnerable, as the data shows they are over 90% of the deaths, this would reduce deaths signifantly without causing a huge social, mental or economic downfall.

[BeElBeeBub]

There are probably hundreds of thousands if not millions more.



The antibody testing in the UK suggests around 4.3m people have had CV.  This number agrees with the estimates of other countries



The current number of confirmed cases is around 250k. So our testing regime picks up around 1 in 8 cases.



If 4.3m people have had it the IFR is around 0.8%.  this would result in between 360k to 500k extra deaths and that assumes the health system doesn't collapse. If that were to happen the death rate would climb as people who would survive with medical intervention eg ventilation die due to lack of facilities.



For reference the usual number of deaths in the UK per year is 5-600k.



If, when antibody tests are widely rolled out, it turns out the IFR is lower it will be welcome news though, given the stakes involved, the decision to take severe measures would still have been prudent given all the available evidence pointed towards an IFR around 1% at the time the decisions taken.



Conversely, if the tests show the total infections to date are still in the single digit % and thus the IFR is still around 1%, what will the doomsayers say to somehow justify their willingness to risk such a death toll?

[B0ycey]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52762939">//https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52762939



So we have some guy for the BBC who took the antibody test and was "Gob smacked" to test positive for Covid19. Which isn't really suprising as clearly there is a significant number of asymtomatic victims that people are trying to ignore to justify faulty models with high casualty rates and to also give themselves a sense that Lockdown for all was worth it.



When the antibody tests are rolled out and if they surpass Hancocks figures, it will be interesting to see what the doomsayers say to somehow justify the economic self harm we have done to ourselves for little benefit.