lugie wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:Here is a study from Oxford university in Britain:Oxford Study: Coronavirus May Have Already Infected Half of U.K. PopulationBecause testing regimens across the world have varied tremendously, the actual mortality and hospitalization rates of COVID-19 have been hard to pin down. But modeling by researchers at the University of Oxford could provide some welcome good news, even if the initial takeaway doesn’t seem so promising. According to a team from Oxford’s Evolutionary Ecology of Infectious Disease lab, half of the population of the United Kingdom may have already been infected with the coronavirus. If this modeling is confirmed in follow-up studies, that would mean that fewer than .01 percent of those infected require hospital treatment, with a majority showing very minor symptoms, or none at all.
According to the modeling, the coronavirus arrived in mid-January at the latest, and spread undetected for over a month before the first cases were confirmed. Based on a susceptibility-infected-recovery model — a commonly used estimate in epidemiology — with data from case and death reports in the U.K. and Italy, the researchers determined that the initial “herd immunity” strategy of the U.K. government could have been sound. “I am surprised that there has been such unqualified acceptance of the Imperial model,” said lead researcher Sunetra Gupta, referring to an academic report predicting that up to 250,000 could be killed if the government maintained its plan to suppress the virus “but not get rid of it completely,” as the country’s chief scientific adviser put it. As of Monday, 87 people in the United Kingdom had died from the coronavirus; out of a total of 90,436 tests, 8,077 were positive.
To see if their math checks out, the Oxford team is now working with researchers at the Universities of Cambridge and Kent to begin antibody testing as soon as this week. “We need immediately to begin large-scale serological surveys — antibody testing — to assess what stage of the epidemic we are in now,” Gupta told the Financial Times.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/03 ... f-u-k.html
So if this is in the right track, and only 433 people have died in the UK, how low can the mortality rate of this be?
Well this is a statistical model and needs a lot of testing of representative population samples (testing for active COVID cases and blood testing for SARS-CoV-2 antibodies) to be backed up and until then it's just one of many theories ranging from the very best (like this one) to the very worst case scenarios.
Of course, if this was true, it would be perfect news.
However, this seems to contradict all the evidence currently coming out of Spain and Italy.
Yes, there might be factors (such as a very high average age in Lombardia and Comunidad de Madrid, higher prevalence of frequent smoking especially in the male demographic) that make those areas more vulnerable to severe cases of a virus that causes pneumonia but the scenes playing in those areas don't appear to fit the narrative of a virus that, while infecting half the UK's population (i.e. over 30 million infected), has only caused 400-odd deaths.
The Comunidad de Madrid has around 4 million inhabitants and already over 2,000 deaths, with ICUs overflowing, ice skating rinks having to be turned into morgues and old people dying left behind in nursing homes. That seems like a very different Coronavirus than the one this statistical model is alluding to.
The mortality data coming out of the different nations seems to show how lost we are on this. Italy 10%, Iran 7%, Germany 0.5%. US 1.2%. The obvious question is this is all based on total infected that have tested positive, how about those who haven't been tested and carry COVID19, how low would the mortality rate go down? or hospitalizations for that matter?
I hope epidemiologists sit down and arrive to a consensus soon on what's the reality of this, because this seems to be all over the place, and extremely unreliable.