Well, the good news is that the flu is over

[Javert]

Some may have been immune before it came along and antibodies won't be detected even if exposed.
Why didn't kids get it and show symptoms? Having been exposed, will kids show antibodies?

Last I heard most actual scientists who are qualified in the field are saying it's highly unlikely that anybody was immune before this virus jumped to humans - it's an entirely new virus and therefore humans by definition don't have any inbuilt immunity.

This is also consistent with the rate the virus was spreading in all countries before drastic measures were put in place - if a significant number of people already had immunity it would not have been spreading so quickly.

Regarding children - this is the subject of lots of studies which have given conflicting results.  There are pretty plausible theories about the abundance of the ACE-2 receptor in the respiratory system of children as to why they would be less likely to catch it, and less likely to be seriously impacted.

My admittedly limited understanding is that if you don't show the relevant antibodies, you are very unlikely to be immune to the symptoms of such a virus unless you have some kind of genetic or physical abnormality that means the virus can't work in your body (probably a one in a million or billion thing) - that's how the human body works.  It's the presence of such antibodies that indicates that your body has already learned how to fight off this or a very similar virus.

Fundamentally there are many many studies going on all across the world, and up to now, no-one who knows what they are talking about seriously thinks that more than 10% at most of people in the general population have already had thisl.

[BeElBeeBub]

The thing is BeElBeeBub,
It's a brand new virus and we don't know who will show antibodies. Some may have been immune before it came along and antibodies won't be detected even if exposed.
Why didn't kids get it and show symptoms? Having been exposed, will kids show antibodies?

Lots of theories and very few hard facts and figures, which make the virus a bit unpredictable and very difficult to properly analyse.

Possible. As you say, it's a new virus and there is a lot we don't know. 

It's possible that there is a hidden facet of this disease that will break in our favor.

However there is no evidence that is the case.  it would very much be a "deus ex machina" event.  Not really one I'd want to rely on however much I hoped it would happen.

[Barry]

The thing is BeElBeeBub,
It's a brand new virus and we don't know who will show antibodies. Some may have been immune before it came along and antibodies won't be detected even if exposed.
Why didn't kids get it and show symptoms? Having been exposed, will kids show antibodies?

Lots of theories and very few hard facts and figures, which make the virus a bit unpredictable and very difficult to properly analyse.

[BeElBeeBub]

New Zealand's population is 4.7 million, with a density of 46 people per square mile. Compare that to the UK which has a population of almost 70 million and a density of 430 people per square mile. If you created a graph with those figures and traced it backwards you would get to a country with a population of one, if that person had the virus for a week and then recovered, their lockdown would be a week. So the argument that I believe your alluding to, that New Zealand got it right and we didn't does't hold water.

Their problem was a totally different problem to ours.

Add to that Nick, New Zealand still have a huge problem, few people have had it so they remain at risk from travellers. They will have to stay isolated until a vaccine is effective.
The UK, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, USA will have more confidence to get on with life when their deaths have fallen to zero.

except the UK antibody prevalence is less than 10%

This ties in with other studies from Spain, Switzerland, Sweden etc.  They all show less than 10% (though unevenly distributed) of the population have antibodies.

That isn't high enough to appreciably reduce the R value (it needs to get to 60% or more before R naturally reduces to 1)

[papasmurf]

You would have thought that I had pissed in the sink. I have not had so much abuse since I wished madam happy birthday three days late.

You would get such abuse here, but I would be banned.

[Borchester]

Their problem was a totally different problem to ours.

"Our" problem started with Bojo The Clown thinking Covid-19 was the "sniffles."

You remind me of Chief Inspector Dreyfus in the Pink Panther. You'll end up in a padded cell writing I hate Bojo on the walls with your foot

A bit off topic but I have just been to a US site. Nice folk but they were really getting worked up about this flu business.  So I did a few sums and said not to worry guys, I reckon this bug will have burned itself out by mid August.

You would have thought that I had pissed in the sink. I have not had so much abuse since I wished madam happy birthday three days late. I was assured that my maths was rubbish (which it is but still better than theirs), Donald Trump's catamite  and planning to send the lobster backs into Boston to storm Breed's Hill. Apparently the US is in the middle of a pandemic that will rage until it wipes out 105% of the population.

I have to say that it is hard to escape the feeling that some folk will miss the Chinese Cough when it is gone.

[Barry]

New Zealand's population is 4.7 million, with a density of 46 people per square mile. Compare that to the UK which has a population of almost 70 million and a density of 430 people per square mile. If you created a graph with those figures and traced it backwards you would get to a country with a population of one, if that person had the virus for a week and then recovered, their lockdown would be a week. So the argument that I believe your alluding to, that New Zealand got it right and we didn't does't hold water.

Their problem was a totally different problem to ours.

Add to that Nick, New Zealand still have a huge problem, few people have had it so they remain at risk from travellers. They will have to stay isolated until a vaccine is effective.
The UK, France, Spain, Italy, Sweden, USA will have more confidence to get on with life when their deaths have fallen to zero.

[Nick]

Their problem was a totally different problem to ours.

"Our" problem started with Bojo The Clown thinking Covid-19 was the "sniffles."

You remind me of Chief Inspector Dreyfus in the Pink Panther. You'll end up in a padded cell writing I hate Bojo on the walls with your foot

[papasmurf]

Their problem was a totally different problem to ours.

"Our" problem started with Bojo The Clown thinking Covid-19 was the "sniffles."

[Nick]

New Zealand locked down earlier in it's infection curve (i.e. before any deaths) and it's lock down is nearly over

New Zealand's population is 4.7 million, with a density of 46 people per square mile. Compare that to the UK which has a population of almost 70 million and a density of 430 people per square mile. If you created a graph with those figures and traced it backwards you would get to a country with a population of one, if that person had the virus for a week and then recovered, their lockdown would be a week. So the argument that I believe your alluding to, that New Zealand got it right and we didn't does't hold water.

Their problem was a totally different problem to ours.

[BeElBeeBub]

Masks and saving face,was that deliberate?

I'd like to say yes but no.....

Anyway China which hasn't to contend with the niceties of a free society is locking down  in areas again,I think though that the UK will not suffer a second wave.......only because as someone pointed out it's unlikely we'll ever get over the first.

To be fair, we can say the 1st wave is nearly over, by all measures we are much lower than we wear in mid April.  About where we were in mid March.

But we are probably going to see a resurgence.  However, as we still have some restrictions the rise won't be a sharp as the 1st.  More of a rising tide than a wave

The next couple of weeks of ONS and actuaries data will be important as it will be there that the effects of lifting of restrictions will start to show.

[Barry]

Link please to prove this assertion is not complete ******** please.

Don't you have access to current affairs, there has been enough comment on the subject.

Just a sample:-

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/uks-response-to-covid-19-too-little-too-late-too-flawed/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aFzFx-Q1Mc

Once again you use this annoying tactic of posting a link to the BMJ and a 4 minute 45 second video neither of which support your assertion that "If there have been a proper enforced lock down earlier it would only have needed to have lasted a month."

As far as debating goes, you just waste my time. Why did you post those "examples", when none support what you said? It's dishonesty and an attempt to divert from the fact that you were posting unsupported opinion. Something we all do, but don't always pretend to be posting supported facts.

Add to this your opener "Don't you have access to current affairs" as if I am ignorant and missed  "If there have been a proper enforced lock down earlier it would only have needed to have lasted a month.".
I didn't miss that, because it has not been said by anyone except you.

[BeElBeeBub]

I am VERY angry at people who are not taking Covid-19 seriously. If there have been a proper enforced lock down earlier it would only have needed to have lasted a month.

Link please to prove this assertion is not complete ******** please.

"A month" might be a bit extreme but (for example) New Zealand locked down earlier in it's infection curve (i.e. before any deaths) and it's lock down is nearly over

Ultimately every country needs to get to a point where the R value is below 1 and the daily infection rate is manageable . 

If we had moved to a set of measures (restrictions, testing, tracing etc) that got R<1 in early Feb, then the infections would have stayed at a few per day, and we could have "cruised" at that level of restriction.

However, if you wait until the infections are higher then you need tighter restrictions and/or a longer period.

The gov have stated the initial doubling time was around 3 days but the halving time, post restrictions, was around 14 days.  That means (in round numbers) that for every day you wait to impose the restrictions you need those restrictions to last an additional 5 days.

[papasmurf]

Link please to prove this assertion is not complete ******** please.

Don't you have access to current affairs, there has been enough comment on the subject.

Just a sample:-

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/uks-response-to-covid-19-too-little-too-late-too-flawed/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aFzFx-Q1Mc

[Barry]

I am VERY angry at people who are not taking Covid-19 seriously. If there have been a proper enforced lock down earlier it would only have needed to have lasted a month.

Link please to prove this assertion is not complete ******** please.