Doctors are worried at last.

[BeElBeeBub]

2008 Swine flu turned out to be much less deadly than the initial data suggested. It's IFR is estimated to ultimately be around 0.05%, about that of normal flu.

Estimates of the IFR of CV consistently land around the 1% order of magnitude.

The net effect of CV is to double everyone's risk of death.  If you're a 25 year old, that's doubling a small number. For a 70year old it's more significant.

But the risk from CV is not just the risk of deaths to individuals.  It's the societal (and economic) impact of doubling the number of deaths in a year.

Early on in the pandemic Dr Spiegelhalter said "the risk to an individual is small, but the risk to society is very large"

The economic impact of the restrictions has been huge but they are the lesser of two economic evils.

I keep coming back to (because nobody has yet answered it) the Chinese question.

The Chinese government prizes it's economy very highly and is indifferent to the lives of it's citizens. As an authoritarian regime it doesn't have to care about public opinion and it could certainly use its power to cover up the negative publicity.

So why has it chosen the economic damage of lockdown over "taking it on the chin"?

[Barry]

Microbe? This isn't a microbe it's a virus which is non living,a microbe is a microorganism.

Well done, you are right. I'm hoping to have the dictionary definition expanded soon.

Comparing how many have died and been born looks more like bean counting than human beings,there is a problem with population but  looking at it that way why not eliminate those who are non productive or perhaps we should limit the number of children people are allowed,why not compulsory abortions then?

I'm not talking about Eugenics, you are confusing me with Wiggles. My real point is we all have to die sometime, we are all incurable cases.

So, do you know how many beans make five?

[Borchester]

What I would like to know is why this pandemic is being treated so differently to the "Swine flu" pandemic in 2009/10.
We've closed borders, locked people in their own homes for 3 months, crashed the economies around the world.
Scotland now want to close the border because they've had no deaths for a couple of days? They still have many cases and some critical. This microbe has caused almost as much political and economic damage as it has deaths.
So far this year 29 million people have died in the world and 69 million have been born, so we have 40 million more people in the last 6 months.

I suspect the main reason is that now we think that we can afford it. In 2008/2009 the world economy had gone arse over tea kettle, down the hill and into the poor house. The banking cock up had created its own lockdown and neither the government nor the public were inclined to prolong it because a few folk had caught a cold.

We might as well lift the lockdown. If 69 million babies have been born then at least 138 million people are ignoring the two metre rule so it is clearly time to accept that it isn't working.

[cromwell]

What I would like to know is why this pandemic is being treated so differently to the "Swine flu" pandemic in 2009/10.
We've closed borders, locked people in their own homes for 3 months, crashed the economies around the world.
Scotland now want to close the border because they've had no deaths for a couple of days? They still have many cases and some critical. This microbe has caused almost as much political and economic damage as it has deaths.
So far this year 29 million people have died in the world and 69 million have been born, so we have 40 million more people in the last 6 months.

Microbe? This isn't a microbe it's a virus which is non living,a microbe is a microorganism.
Comparing how many have died and been born looks more like bean counting than human beings,there is a problem with population but  looking at it that way why not eliminate those who are non productive or perhaps we should limit the number of children people are allowed,why not compulsory abortions then?

[Nick]

The news I'm hearing is they aren't being locked down, they're just not being allowed to relax the rules like the rest of the UK on Saturday.

[Barry]

The problem with imposing a local lock-down is the flight of people to escape it -  from an infected area to others less infected.
It happened in Italy when the North locked down, and it happened in Spain when Madrid locked down.
Best let it take its course. people have had enough of this lock-down nonsense, after the Cummings affair, especially.

[papasmurf]

Oh well that did take long, sorry for the newspaper link but give it a couple of hours:-

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/leicester-braces-local-lockdown-36-22272894

UPDATED19:14, 29 JUN 2020
As Leicester braces for local lockdown - 36 areas where coronavirus is on the rise
Coronavirus is still on the rise in 36 counties, cities and boroughs around England as Leicester could be forced into a local lockdown due to its outbreak

[Javert]

What I would like to know is why this pandemic is being treated so differently to the "Swine flu" pandemic in 2009/10.

For starters:
- Much lower mortality rate. 
- Less infectious. 
- Because it was a type of flu, they knew that they could develop a vaccine quickly.
- Much lower proportion of people require hospital treatment and for less time.

[Barry]

What I would like to know is why this pandemic is being treated so differently to the "Swine flu" pandemic in 2009/10.
We've closed borders, locked people in their own homes for 3 months, crashed the economies around the world.
Scotland now want to close the border because they've had no deaths for a couple of days? They still have many cases and some critical. This microbe has caused almost as much political and economic damage as it has deaths.
So far this year 29 million people have died in the world and 69 million have been born, so we have 40 million more people in the last 6 months.

[BeElBeeBub]

The "long tail" is what worries me the most about CV

Deaths get the headlines and are obviously worrying but if there is a significant % (by that I mean anything above a few %) of the population who have long term health problems, particularly if that % holds up for younger patients who have so far been told they are "not at risk" because the hospitalisation and death rates are better for them, the impact of CV could only just be getting started.

If you couple that with short term immunity (there is literally zero evidence of immunity lasting on get than 6 months because nobody has had it longer than that) then things could get nasty without a vaccine.

Fingers crossed the long tail symptoms do eventually fade.

[Nick]

What I was talking about was the antigen swab test to tell if you have currently got it

If we go off what the doom mongers say you don't need a test to tell you you've got it, and if you do then you have nothing to worry about.

[Barry]

Sorry Javert, my misunderstanding there.

[Javert]

Not 99% accurate then.
I'm still pretty sure I've had it despite the negative antibody test.

All these weird things add to the people promoting conspiracy theories. Little surprise they are becoming popular.

Two different things.

The antibody test to detect whether you have had it in the past is claimed to be 100% accurate on positive results - i.e. if it says you've had it, you definitely have.

I think it was claimed about 98% accurate on negatives, but that was by the manufacturer and it's always worthwhile being careful about believing the seller's claims.  However that would mean that even if you've had it, there's a 2% chance the test will be negative.

What I was talking about was the antigen swab test to tell if you have currently got it - that test is the one that has a 20-30% false negative i.e. if you have got it, there's at least a 2 in 10 chance you will test negative.  I think it's more accurate on the other side so if it's positive, it's pretty much sure that you have got it.

[Barry]

As I've mentioned several times on this forum, any doctor who's prepared to speak "off the record" will tell you that the antigen test has a false negative rate of about 20-30%, and the one they were using back in March was more like 50%.

I presume some very powerful people have decided it's not in the public interest to discuss the accuracy of the antigen test.

Not 99% accurate then.
I'm still pretty sure I've had it despite the negative antibody test.

All these weird things add to the people promoting conspiracy theories. Little surprise they are becoming popular.

[Javert]

To double confirm previous medical diagnosis my wife just got a positive Covid-19 antibody test result.  She got the test as she's an NHS employee and they were doing full blood tests.

How bad was the disease for her ?

She was in hospital 8 days on Oxygen, nebulisers and various other drugs.  By coincidence (but not part of a trial) she was given Dexamethasone but this was because they were not sure whether it was an asthma issue or Covid at first. 

She had viral pneumonia and signs of kidney failure.

I think it was pretty much as bad as it gets before being admitted to ICU but luckily she started to get better before that.

She tested negative on the antigen test twice whilst in hospital but has now tested positive on antibody test, which was fully expected by the doctors.  As I've mentioned several times on this forum, any doctor who's prepared to speak "off the record" will tell you that the antigen test has a false negative rate of about 20-30%, and the one they were using back in March was more like 50%.

I presume some very powerful people have decided it's not in the public interest to discuss the accuracy of the antigen test.

After coming out of hospital she was very fatigued and breathless for a good 10 weeks, but steadily improving bit by bit.  She seemed nearly back to normal last week but has now had a dip again.