Sweden avoiding lockdown

threeball

Danno wrote: »

https://www.roche.com/media/releases/med-cor-2020-05-03.htm

https://www.abbott.com/corpnewsroom/product-and-innovation/abbott-launches-covid-19-antibody-test.html

Roche's is 99.8% accurate. I've read that Abbott says 99% also. The Abbott has been EU approved with the CE mark.

Abbotts gives 15% false negatives with some reports saying its as high as 25%. CE marks mean nothing bar it won't electrocute you or get cut on a sharp edge.

Danno

GreeBo wrote: »

Have there been any studies to determine if someone with the antibodies/immune still be a carrier and infect others?

Totally possible... that is why washing your hands is highly recommended.

Think of an immune nurse working in a hospital with infected hands. MRSA bug from a few years back comes to mind.

Danno

threeball wrote: »

Abbotts gives 15% false negatives with some reports saying its as high as 25%. CE marks mean nothing bar it won't electrocute you or get cut on a sharp edge.

Source?

threeball

Danno wrote: »

Source?

Google it

JoChervil

I don’t think we should really compare Sweden with any other country. They are different. They don’t care about vulnerable people. In which other country compulsory sterilisation would be allowed of people, not only insane, ill or disable but also people, who were feebleminded or having antisocial lifestyle? In 20th century?

63,000 people were sterilised!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/1999/mar/06/stephenbates

No wander they have more obedient society but also less d***heads.

They can’t be compared with anyone else. I think this kind of experiment could only be conducted there.

Danno

threeball wrote: »

Google it

If you think a CNN opinion piece is worth it's salt then good for you.

GreeBo

Danno wrote: »

Totally possible... that is why washing your hands is highly recommended.

Think of an immune nurse working in a hospital with infected hands. MRSA bug from a few years back comes to mind.

Sorry I meant as an asymptomatic carrier rather than just a conduit.

E.g can you remain as an asymptomatic carrier indefinitely?
Or does generating antibodies mean you are no longer a carrier, by definition?

STB.

There are different sets of Antibody/SerologyTests.

One that is not being used is the one that looks for neutralizing antibodies. The one that is being used is a yes/no presence test. Nothing else.

Either way it does not confer immunity (there are already cases of reinfection in Asia already). Its important to remember that antibody testing also doesn't confer a reduction in the virus in a person system either.

Antibody presence can be just a marker of infection, like HIV for example. Antibodies are not necessarily good either (read up on dengue).

Right now assuming the tests are 100% accurate, all it can tell you is whether you had the virus. Nothing more.

plodder

DeVore wrote: »

But it doesnt have to be widespread, you know who had it (records) so you know who to test. There are 20-odd thousand, thats more than enough to get a sample size from (we predict general elections from 500-1000 sample size).

20,000 sounds like a lot, but out of a population of 5 million it's a small percentage. It's an infection rate of 0.4%. I'm sure the number of infected people is a lot higher, but it suggests the chance of catching it is still quite low regardless of immunity.

With our suppression measures it looks like the virus will be temporarily suppressed in a few weeks. So, the chance of being exposed to it will be even less and if people aren't being exposed to the virus, then you can't prove (or disprove) any immunity theory.

So, without the ethically questionable experiments I mentioned earlier, I don't think we are going to have conclusive proof of immunity any time soon, except maybe if it continues to circulate in Sweden and they do repeated tests of people who have been infected.

GreeBo wrote:

Why would we have to answer the immunity question if China or Italy or Sweden answer it first?

Sure, we don't. Though the virus is being suppressed in China and Italy too.

Diarmuid

DeVore wrote: »

Whats your "exchange rate" from deaths to economy then?

Please don't pretent that you *haven't* a similar exchange rate.

GreeBo

STB. wrote: »

There are different sets of Antibody/SerologyTests.

One that is not being used is the one that looks for neutralizing antibodies. The one that is being used is a yes/no presence test. Nothing else.

Either way it does not confer immunity (there are already cases of reinfection in Asia already). Its important to remember that antibody testing also doesn't confer a reduction in the virus in a person system either.

Antibody presence can be just a marker of infection, like HIV for example. Antibodies are not necessarily good either (read up on dengue).

Right now assuming the tests are 100% accurate, all it can tell you is whether you had the virus. Nothing more.

Thanks, that's exactly what I suspected and was asking.
In which case, herd immunity is potentially meaningless.

Tivoli1300

simongurnick wrote: »

That's not true man.

Go read about the Spanish flu and how it was managed and mismanaged in different cities. Thanks

GreeBo

plodder wrote: »

20,000 sounds like a lot, but out of a population of 5 million it's a small percentage. It's an infection rate of 0.4%. I'm sure the number of infected people is a lot higher, but it suggests the chance of catching it is still quite low regardless of immunity.

With our suppression measures it looks like the virus will be temporarily suppressed in a few weeks. So, the chance of being exposed to it will be even less and if people aren't being exposed to the virus, then you can't prove (or disprove) any immunity theory.

So, without the ethically questionable experiments I mentioned earlier, I don't think we are going to have conclusive proof of immunity any time soon, except maybe if it continues to circulate in Sweden and they do repeated tests of people who have been infected.


Sure, we don't. Though the virus is being suppressed in China and Italy too.

Do younot think there are enough known infected people that we can test?
It doesn't have to be a random sample.

yosemitesam1

tobefrank321 wrote: »

Lets say everyone on the planet contracted covid 19 at once and immunity lasted about 6 months. This would mean coronavirus would die out within 6 months as there are no new hosts. The R0 would drop to 0. As long as the Chinese didn't go back to eating bats etc we'd have this virus under control.

If immunity lasts 6 months then any country going down the herd immunity route would need rapid infection of the population and recovery in 5 months and maybe even 4 months. But remember experts say you don't need 100% infection. If a country reached 70 or 80% infection and recovery this would be enough for herd immunity.

The evidence so far points to at least 6 months immunity. 4.3 million cases and not a single re-infection, particurly from the early cases.

But you want more proof? The Chinese are about to test everyone in Wuhan. I hope they test all 80,000 who were infected and recovered. This might tell us if there were re infections are not. Hopefully there wasn't.

In summary immunity doesn't have to last years. It only has to last long enough for about 80% of your population to be infected and recovered so herd immunity is reached and the virus cannot find new hosts leading to a collapse in the R0 value.

What will be found is that there will be a variation in immunity between people from maybe 6 weeks to over 2 years.
It won't be consistent for everyone, so covid won't ever die out. But it won't ever be able to infect large percentages of the population in one short period again.

Herd immunity will happen at much less than 70% infected for two reasons.
The r0 figures are pretty much meaningless (as positive test results are in no way indicative of virus spread) and have overestimated the potential for the virus to spread.
The 70ish% is a very crude calculation and doesn't in anyway represent how the virus has or will move through the population. We don't all have equal chance of coming into contact with it, actually being susceptible to infection or spreading it.

Endemic coronavirus strains can kill >8% of vulnerable elderly populations and make up between 5-15% of respiratory virus infections. Yet they have gone almost completely unnoticed by the general population.
Long term immunity isn't generated against these and they don't cause mass outbreaks, a moderate amount of people get infected every winter and keep immunity levels across the population topped up without any great spikes in cases.

ek motor

yosemitesam1 wrote: »

The r0 figures are pretty much meaningless

The r0 is key in gauging to spread of the virus.

"If the second decimal digit were above 1 that would not yet be critical. But the higher it goes above 1, like 1.2 or 1.3 and over a longer period of time, it would create a situation where we would pay very close attention and think about measures how to countersteer that"

- Lars Schaade of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI)

yosemitesam1

ek motor wrote: »

The r0 is key in gauging to spread of the virus.

"If the second decimal digit were above 1 that would not yet be critical. But the higher it goes above 1, like 1.2 or 1.3 and over a longer period of time, it would create a situation where we would pay very close attention and think about measures how to countersteer that"

- Lars Schaade of the Robert Koch Institute (RKI)

Put sh1t into a model and you get sh1t back out. That is the problem with it.
The official figures are in no way representative of what is actually happening in the population so how can they be used to generate a figure of what is happening in that same population?

niallo27

STB. wrote: »

There are different sets of Antibody/SerologyTests.

One that is not being used is the one that looks for neutralizing antibodies. The one that is being used is a yes/no presence test. Nothing else.

Either way it does not confer immunity (there are already cases of reinfection in Asia already). Its important to remember that antibody testing also doesn't confer a reduction in the virus in a person system either.

Antibody presence can be just a marker of infection, like HIV for example. Antibodies are not necessarily good either (read up on dengue).

Right now assuming the tests are 100% accurate, all it can tell you is whether you had the virus. Nothing more.

There are cases of re-infection, I have heard nothing. This would surely be all over the news if it was true as it basically means we are ****ed.

Del Griffith

niallo27 wrote: »

There are cases of re-infection, I have heard nothing. This would surely be all over the news if it was true as it basically means we are ****ed.

Don't worry it's bull****

Ineedaname

niallo27 wrote: »

There are cases of re-infection, I have heard nothing. This would surely be all over the news if it was true as it basically means we are ****ed.

There are no known cases of reinfection.

plodder

I heard about a case the other day here where someone tested positive eight weeks ago, thought they had recovered, and just tested positive again a few days ago. They've been told they just never recovered fully. Individual cases like that could be confused with re-infection.

ek motor

STB. wrote: »

There are different sets of Antibody/SerologyTests.

One that is not being used is the one that looks for neutralizing antibodies. The one that is being used is a yes/no presence test. Nothing else.

Either way it does not confer immunity (there are already cases of reinfection in Asia already). Its important to remember that antibody testing also doesn't confer a reduction in the virus in a person system either.

Antibody presence can be just a marker of infection, like HIV for example. Antibodies are not necessarily good either (read up on dengue).

Right now assuming the tests are 100% accurate, all it can tell you is whether you had the virus. Nothing more.

I thought the cases of re-infection in South Korea (presume this is what you're referring to) were debunked ?

tobefrank321

STB. wrote: »

There are different sets of Antibody/SerologyTests.

One that is not being used is the one that looks for neutralizing antibodies. The one that is being used is a yes/no presence test. Nothing else.

Either way it does not confer immunity (there are already cases of reinfection in Asia already). Its important to remember that antibody testing also doesn't confer a reduction in the virus in a person system either.

Antibody presence can be just a marker of infection, like HIV for example. Antibodies are not necessarily good either (read up on dengue).

Right now assuming the tests are 100% accurate, all it can tell you is whether you had the virus. Nothing more.

You must have a world exclusive on that one! Any source linking to a trial or study to back it up?

The South Koreans in a study found a small number of people who were showing positive long after they should have been negative. The media ran with this as proof of reinfection and it made headlines for days.

The South Koreans later said it wasn't reinfection but traces of the dead virus. Of course this barely made the news at all, and some people are still going around saying reinfection is possible, when no study has shown this and there isn't a single credible account of the millions of recovered people being re-infected.

Lux23

I just looked at their rates = they have 27,272 cases and 3,313 deaths. That is a 12% death rate, it must be one of the highest in the world?

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

ek motor

Lux23 wrote: »

I just looked at their rates = they have 27,272 cases and 3,313 deaths. That is a 12% death rate, it must be one of the highest in the world?

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

Sweden's testing rate is low compared to other European countries.

Lux23

ek motor wrote: »

Sweden's testing rate is low compared to other European countries.

Well, in that case, maybe they aren't testing the stiffs too?

Drumpot

ek motor wrote: »

Sweden's testing rate is low compared to other European countries.

They aren’t declaring a lot of their deaths either. Countries are cynically fudging numbers as it suits them.

ek motor

Drumpot wrote: »

They aren’t declaring a lot of their deaths either. Countries are cynically fudging numbers as it suits them.

No question, there are massive discrepancies in the reported deaths in many countries. Iran and Ecuador are two countries in which the real death toll is probably multiples of the reported numbers.

seamus

It's funny that there are apparently people here arguing that herd immunity is possible AND that we cannot know the long-term immunity in the population.

You cannot have the former without the latter.

Spurious reports of reinfection notwithstanding, the best we can say right now is that someone who has been infected, in general cannot get infected six months later. That is not long enough to establish herd immunity when the virus is being spread organically; immunity needs to last years, even decades. Short-lived immunity can only be used to establish herd protection when you embark on an aggressive vaccination programme, or when the infection spreads rapidly through a population. Covid is fast, but not that fast.

The herd immunity approach is a very, very risky experiment based on what is effectively a hope that immunity is almost permanent.

VillageIdiot71

ek motor wrote: »

No question, there are massive discrepancies in the reported deaths in many countries. Iran and Ecuador are two countries in which the real death toll is probably multiples of the reported numbers.

But I don't think anyone is alleging that Sweden is hiding a multiple of its deaths.

Or that theyve a sudden increased in unexplained deaths, that should have been deemed Covid cases.

That would require a Gemma O'Doherty level of conspiracy theory.

yosemitesam1

seamus wrote: »

It's funny that there are apparently people here arguing that herd immunity is possible AND that we cannot know the long-term immunity in the population.

You cannot have the former without the latter.

Spurious reports of reinfection notwithstanding, the best we can say right now is that someone who has been infected, in general cannot get infected six months later. That is not long enough to establish herd immunity when the virus is being spread organically; immunity needs to last years, even decades. Short-lived immunity can only be used to establish herd protection when you embark on an aggressive vaccination programme, or when the infection spreads rapidly through a population. Covid is fast, but not that fast.

The herd immunity approach is a very, very risky experiment based on what is effectively a hope that immunity is almost permanent.

None of that is true