Be Wary - Virus Is Still There.

[WillyHeckaslike]

Why so? ... Click ... what is ADE Induction?

[mbonwick]

The flu, SARS and MERS are all caused by coronaviruses, and I'd definitely say they caused an issue!


All you've said is that vaccines are available for the animal variants of these viruses - which doesn't change my point that there are no human vaccines available.

[clf]

Originally Posted by mbonwick

Really? The flu, SARS and MERS are all caused by coronaviruses, and I'd definitely say they caused an issue!


All you've said is that vaccines are available for the animal variants of these viruses - which doesn't change my point that there are no human vaccines available.

what of the flu vaccine used to reduce the effects and risk, that is recommended annually for those vulnerable to coronaviruses? Or do you mean a cure?

[Avulon]

Just taken a look at the published numbers for test results. And they don't make sense given the wider picture of hysteria and panic.


As of 9am on 2 July the uk has conducted 9,914,663 tests (9.9 million). 283,757 have given positive results. Now, given that those tests more recently conducted (past 6-8 weeks) do include routine tests of NHS staff especially (i.e. people without symptoms) you may expect that the number of positive results would start to move towards the figure in the wider population whether symptomatic or asymptomatic. That is to say how widespread the virus is across the population. So the positive results represent 2.86% of the population. That is all. Now forgive me for being sceptical but at once we're told that this a virus to be feared for it's potential to spread like wildfire. So either that's untrue or the actions taken have been extraordinairily effective. But that still doesn't gel. By any analysis of the spread of Covid-19 in the UK it's clear that there multiple carriers (thousands) in the country by the start of the year. Had that been true, and the virulence as much as advertised then that figure of 2.83% is extraordinairily low given that there was no 'lockdown' until the end of March. The only explanation I can find is that it's already burned itself out in the asymptomatic population. To put that bluntly, As a population many more of us than 2.83% must have already had it and defeated it. Some with barely being aware of it.



Or am I wrong? ... discuss...


[figures source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavi...or-the-public]

[clf]

Originally Posted by Avulon

Just taken a look at the published numbers for test results. And they don't make sense given the wider picture of hysteria and panic.


As of 9am on 2 July the uk has conducted 9,914,663 tests (9.9 million). 283,757 have given positive results. Now, given that those tests more recently conducted (past 6-8 weeks) do include routine tests of NHS staff especially (i.e. people without symptoms) you may expect that the number of positive results would start to move towards the figure in the wider population whether symptomatic or asymptomatic. That is to say how widespread the virus is across the population. So the positive results represent 2.86% of the population. That is all. Now forgive me for being sceptical but at once we're told that this a virus to be feared for it's potential to spread like wildfire. So either that's untrue or the actions taken have been extraordinairily effective. But that still doesn't gel. By any analysis of the spread of Covid-19 in the UK it's clear that there multiple carriers (thousands) in the country by the start of the year. Had that been true, and the virulence as much as advertised then that figure of 2.83% is extraordinairily low given that there was no 'lockdown' until the end of March. The only explanation I can find is that it's already burned itself out in the asymptomatic population. To put that bluntly, As a population many more of us than 2.83% must have already had it and defeated it. Some with barely being aware of it.



Or am I wrong? ... discuss...


[figures source: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/coronavi...or-the-public]

I havent looked at the figures, but you cannot use the tests conducted as an indicator of the population. The tests are only for those vulnerable (as I understand it). There are those who will contract the virus and their bodies (or should that be antibodies lol) will be able to deal or control it.

Those who are not vulnerable are the majority, so the numbers infected will be higher. How much higher I do not know. If you take it that some of those, let's round it off to 10million tests are repeat tests. Just making up the numbers to make the point here, say, 4 million are repeat tests, that means 6 million are individuals. Of those 6 million, how many are NHS staff? How many vulnerable? How many are shielding for the vulnerable? Let's say that 4 of the 6 million are vulnerable to succumbing to the virus, that means your 2.85% becomes 7 point something per cent, will be in danger.

BUT that is STILL not the full picture because it is STILL not indicative of the population.

[Avulon]

Originally Posted by clf

I havent looked at the figures, but you cannot use the tests conducted as an indicator of the population. The tests are only for those vulnerable (as I understand it). There are those who will contract the virus and their bodies (or should that be antibodies lol) will be able to deal or control it.

Those who are not vulnerable are the majority, so the numbers infected will be higher. How much higher I do not know. If you take it that some of those, let's round it off to 10million tests are repeat tests. Just making up the numbers to make the point here, say, 4 million are repeat tests, that means 6 million are individuals. Of those 6 million, how many are NHS staff? How many vulnerable? How many are shielding for the vulnerable? Let's say that 4 of the 6 million are vulnerable to succumbing to the virus, that means your 2.85% becomes 7 point something per cent, will be in danger.

BUT that is STILL not the full picture because it is STILL not indicative of the population.

What logic leads you to the highlighted conclusion you've come to above?

_____________________________________________

I guess you didn't actually read what I wrote

... do include routine tests of NHS staff especially (i.e. people without symptoms)...

There's been much greater generalised testing in the last month, and still the rate of +ve results is reassuringly low. So, as I said there are TWO possiblities; either 'lockdown' has been wildly successful against a highly virulent strain (but that theory doesn't hold water due to the lateness of the UK lockdown), or it's already burnt itself out. Only accurate testing to see who has had it will tell with any degree of certainty, and that will rest on the accuracy of the tests themselves. Clearly only a low percentage actually do have it at any one time.

[Borg Warner]

Another 136 deaths announced today, would be interesting to know where these were infected, when infected and how long they had been ill for, as well as any underlying health issues.

[Borg Warner]

From 11:06:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/bbcnews

[stocktake]

There must be far more of the population who have had the disease than the figures show.

An example of the discrepancy in official figures is the nursing home where my wife works. Figures show that 4 of the staff have had a positive test. In reality there are around 24 staff employed and with 18 residents passing away in the last 6 weeks and all featuring C-19 as present at time of death it is simply unrealistic to say only 4 of the staff contracted C-19.

As yet no antibody tests have been offered despite the government claims they are priority.

Another theory is T cell Immunity which one study suggests that up to 30% of the population are immune ( but that was on Breakfast TV)

[Borg Warner]

Leicester's not the only place in a new lockdown:

https://www.thelocal.es/20200704/cat...virus-lockdown

https://www.itv.com/news/2020-07-04/...00-people-live


Wonder if folks will still be clamouring to fly out there?

There is no doubt that this is virus is not going away.