No smilies, no avatars, no flashing gifs. Just discuss the issues of the day, from last night's telly via football to science or philosophy.
Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Natascha - 26 Jun 2020 13:00:32 (#1 of 1999)

We were discussing this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2020/jun/26
/coronavirus-live-news-cases-rise-in-27-us-states-as-cdc-estimates-20m-americans-may-have-been-infected?page=with:block-5ef5d2e18f08f0cc6d188284#block-5ef5d2e18f08f0cc6d188284


Which means that that resort is near the level at which 'herd immunity' is supposed to kick in. It'll be interesting to watch.

FrankieTeardrop - 26 Jun 2020 13:13:40 (#2 of 1999)

I think it will be horrible - my understanding was that the concept of herd immunity in the context of this virus was bunk anyway - just another con by Trump and Johnson

xDiggy - 26 Jun 2020 13:14:48 (#3 of 1999)

Doesn't sound horrible, if 40% had it and only 15% of them even experienced symptoms.

FrankieTeardrop - 26 Jun 2020 13:21:18 (#4 of 1999)

That's nearly 10 million* people "experiencing symptoms" and in many cases that phrase will be rather euphemistic

*(In terms of UK population)

AdonisBlue - 26 Jun 2020 13:29:32 (#5 of 1999)

How do we know how many have had it with no symptoms of the antibody tests are unreliable?

mancurse - 26 Jun 2020 13:33:14 (#6 of 1999)

I have nothing to say, but wanted to get my name high up on the first page of the new thread.

Carry on.

fogsake - 26 Jun 2020 13:34:24 (#7 of 1999)

<washes hands>

Dayraven - 26 Jun 2020 13:34:48 (#8 of 1999)

The tests seem to have a low false positive rate, the false negatives are more of an issue.

AdonisBlue - 26 Jun 2020 13:37:24 (#9 of 1999)

But yesterday the consensus was antibody tests are not accurate enough to be of any use. Today you are discussing the results of a survey based on them.

tasselhoff - 26 Jun 2020 13:43:18 (#10 of 1999)

I thought it was the viral swab test that had a ~30% false negative rate.

I'd assume an antibody blood test would be more accurate

Macpaddy - 26 Jun 2020 13:48:15 (#11 of 1999)

More accurate but useless seems to be the message.

binturong - 26 Jun 2020 13:51:54 (#12 of 1999)

The antigen test has a very high false negative rate.

The antibody test that we have now is very accurate, on both positives and negatives.

The discussion yesterday, for those who weren't paying attention because their bonnets were full of resourse bees, covered 2 points.

The first is that this accurate test is very new - it couldn't have been rolled out more widely earlier because it didnt exist.

The second is that what the antibody test does very accurately is find people who have the specific antibodies that it tests for.

Which is great, as far as it goes.

But there's a limited amount that can be done with that information because we do know that the group with those antibodies is not the same as 'all people who have had Covid'. And we have no idea whether or not is it the same as 'people who are immune from catching it'.

So if you test negative, you might or might not have had it; and you might or might not be able to catch it in future.

If you test positive you have had it; and you might or might not be able to catch it again in future.

Policywatcher - 26 Jun 2020 13:51:56 (#13 of 1999)

> nemo75 - 26 Jun 2020 12:53:35 ( #10183 of 10188)

> Are these the antibodies that didn’t exist yesterday?

Oh FFS, nemo, nobody's said that they don't exist.

Just that in a significant proportion of confirmed cases, they are no longer detectable after a scarily short period.

Policywatcher - 26 Jun 2020 13:53:31 (#14 of 1999)

Which incidentally doesn't contradict the skiing thing - what it would mean is that the 40% showing antibodies may be later cases, or the ones who do show it out of a larger group that have been infected and the rest of which no longer show antibodies.

TheExcession - 26 Jun 2020 13:59:34 (#15 of 1999)

Looks like a definite second wave starting in the US looking at these graphs

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/
us/

binturong - 26 Jun 2020 14:04:20 (#16 of 1999)

That's not looking good.

AdonisBlue - 26 Jun 2020 14:04:57 (#17 of 1999)

Either the tests are useful and therefore worth investing resource bees in or they aren't useful and aren't worth investing in.

Which is it?

Gotta go work, have fun sports fans.

JohnIlly - 26 Jun 2020 14:06:55 (#18 of 1999)

How do we know how many have had it with no symptoms of the antibody tests are unreliable?

The unreliability is that the test can give a false negative, or they can be infected and the virus is wiped out by T-cells.

I know someone else has made that point but it plainly needs repeating.

bossab2 - 26 Jun 2020 14:10:01 (#19 of 1999)

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-53190209

Britain working hard on its second wave.

And Mr Eustice speaks bollocks - its been busy all week ( presumably partly those people that HM Gov are paying not to go to work)

binturong - 26 Jun 2020 14:15:16 (#20 of 1999)

#17 Hallelujah! He's finally understood that allocating resources to things that are not useful doesn't help.

Still some way to go, but we're further forward than yesterday.

Previous
|
Next
|
Top
|
Bottom
Check Subscriptions
|
Home » UK News