This comes from The Conversation this morning:
Lots of people strongly suspect they have had COVID-19, despite the fact that only 0.5% of the UK's population has actually been diagnosed with it. Exactly how many people have been infected is notoriously difficult to estimate, with antibody tests suggesting it is no more than 5-10%. Until we know this number, it is hard to work out the exact fatality rate of the disease. Many models suggest this is around 1%, but models rely on certain assumptions, and often fail to take into account uncertainties in the data and explanations for these. A new study has tried to account for inaccuracies in antibody testing and death reporting and suggests that many more people have had coronavirus than is being reported.
And this comes from the morning email from The Guardian:
In the United States, it is estimated that 20 million people have contracted the virus — 10 times more than the official count — according to the country's disease control agency. On Thursday, 27 states reported a rise in new cases while Texas has paused the next phase of its reopening from lockdown. The famously Covid-sceptic Brazilian president, Jair Bolsonaro, says that although he has tested negative multiple times he may have had the disease after all. The country recorded almost 40,000 new cases yesterday. Swedes are losing confidence in their government's handling of the crisis. The country has seen many more deaths than some other European neighbours after it stuck to a light-touch lockdown policy.
Why highlight these two reports? Because they make it clear that we cannot be sure what the true coronavirus death rate is.
What is certain is that we will not know for some time as yet. And when the data is finally analysed it may we'll be that the secondary deaths cause by coronavirus - because people were not able to be treated for other conditions because hospitals were so overwhelmed by coronavirus - may be as significant as coronavirus itself, meaning that excess deaths could be much higher than those due to coronavirus.
Weigh the factors together and what do you get? The paper linked in the Conversation suggests the infection rate is higher than thought - so maybe 10% in the U.K., which is vastly higher than officially reported. But given that this means 6.5 million people have had it, and the deaths are about 65,000 now, that would still imply a death rate of 1%, which is what that paper suggests more likely to be true than the reported 1.4% in New York, for example.
However, that still suggests that without a vaccine (which still sounds unlikely) that another near 600,000 people could die earlier than they otherwise would in the UK because of this. It would seem that this possibility is now little understood, either by politicians permitting the end of lockdown or people on Bournemouth beach.
I've already suggested that the fat lady has not sung for coronavirus this morning: I am keen that she gets the chance. I keep wondering what the prospect of that happening is. It's lower than she might wish for, I strongly suspect. And that this is not appreciated worries me, greatly.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Tory policy is very simple: get the British people back to the pubs and beaches, cheer them up and they’ll like us again.
Measurements of “who has already “had” the virus” are quite meaningless or even irrelevant unless having done so grants at least some immunity to further infection. This is still apparently an unknown.
I have just seen the pictures of people on beaches on Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole etc. I was still reeling seeing what happened at Lulworth Cove.
I think that a spike is undoubtedly going to happen. Death had a big grin on his face undoubtedly.
What a bunch of muppets. Covid fodder.
I live near a local inland resort popular with motorcyclists and tourists, and the local residents have to put up with visitors who just flaunt the rules away from their own homes.
Common sense? I don’t see as much of it as I would like.
“However, that still suggests that without a vaccine (which still sounds unlikely) that another near 600,000 people could die earlier than they otherwise would in the UK”
If you knew anything at all about viral pathology and infectious disease, you would know how utterly cretinous that comment was. Please do not comment on things you clearly do not understand. It is recklessly stupid to spread alarm.
Actually, I have read a great deal on this
And talk to those who know a lot more than I do
And a 1% death rate is likely right now
The conclusion that follows is not exactly hard to reach
So, explain yourself
“explain yourself”
As you clearly know so little it would take too long.
Whatever it is you read, whatever it was you listened to, you did not understand it.
You have just looked at the mortality rate, the population of the UK and multiply them. That ignores so many variables it is meaningless. Using your simplistic approach, the H5N1 strain of avian influenza, which has a mortality rate of around 60%, should have resulted in 39,000,000 UK deaths. The same simplistic approach would suggest that Sweden, with no lockdown, would suffer 100,000+ coronavirus deaths. As of today, the death toll is 5,320. Japan, no lockdown, population 126,000,000, your model 1,260,000 deaths, actual deaths 968. A reasoned person might conclude such a simplistic approach was wrong and try to learn more.
But reading other comments from you it seems you arrive at a conclusion first, then look at the facts and ignore any that do not fit and denounce as ‘trolls’ anyone who disagrees with you. This is not the basis to learn.
I’m happy for you to disagree…
But I am well aware that there are epidemiologists who will disagree with you
Hi, Richard
Do you have any a reliable source/figure for the % of the population that is susceptible to the virus – the only figures I can find are: 16% (+/-) in pregnant women in New York; and 17% (+/-) onboard the Diamond Princess.
Cheers, Peter
No…in a word
Thank you for your reply.
So, you accept that circa 10% of the U.K. population (68million) have already been infected; and you have not encountered any evidence that disproves the, let’s call it, 20% population infection rate.
10% already infected; leaves 10% of the population remaining susceptible. So, that would mean another potential 50k deaths (ignoring age profiles, etc.). 100k is just under 0.15% of 68million.
I am not seeking to trivialise any deaths, let alone 100k; just trying to understand the risks going forward.
Cheers, Peter
No, the evidence is 5% – and I have allowed 10%
There is no one suggesting 20%
How can you say that of the 90% who have not had it only 10% are susceptible?
Why?
Why isn’t the susceptibility rate near enough 100% – it is for colds. How come this is different
There is no logic to your claim
I neither said, nor inferred that 20% had been infected. I said that the evidence pointed to only 20% (the 2 studies alluded to show 16% and 17%) being susceptible to catching the virus – you stated that you could offer no evidence to the contrary.
Only 17% +/- of the 3700 odd passengers (mostly old farts like me) and crew of the Diamond Princess tested positive for the virus; and some 7 – 13 died (depends on which report you read). Which gives a 0.35% population death rate – amongst the mostly elderly; and a 2% case fatality rate (if we use the larger figure) for the same elderly population.
I do not agree with the claim of only 20% are susceptible
Hi, Richard.
Here’s a well cited study that backs up my ‘claim’. I’m surprised that, as you’re well read on the subject, and that you are in constant contact with the experts, that you have not come across this paper before.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009316
There is an abundance of Diamond Princess studies to choose from.
Cheers, Peter
You do realise that the ship was in lockdown don’t you?
Of course the infection rate was low
Hi, Richard.
The ship went into lockdown once they realised that there was a major problem – the owners had to be forced to do so. Sort of like the situation Boris faced with the U.K. – community spread rampant, and hesitant leadership.
What are your thoughts on the well cited New York pregnant women study; was the early shutdown responsible for their 16% +/- infection rate?
Cheers, Peter
Peter
Every example you give is of limited populations
Nothing so far indicates anyone has natural immunities
But it is clear maybe half the population at least will be asymptomatic, which is not the same as being immune and is allowed for in my data (by doubling the infected rate)
Now very politely, I have heard you and you’ll now be deleted
Fair enough, Richard; it’s your prerogative to delete any comment you chose to – for whatever reason.
But to dismiss the 3700 Diamond Princesses cohort as being a ‘Limited Population’ is a bit of a stretch…..
Cheers, Peter
They were locked down!
I despair…
In regard to the idea that only 20% of the population are susceptible to the virus, here is an example where the infection rate on a ship was almost 50% (and has probably risen since)
https://www.france24.com/en/20200417-france-reports-40-of-aircraft-carrier-group-crew-test-positive-for-covid-19
And it’s 40% in an Anglesey meat processing plant
You do realise don’t you Anna that there is a stronger possibility than we would like to accept that the recent Covid reporting figures were understated initially as the virus took hold?
‘As of today, the death toll is 5,320. Japan, no lockdown, population 126,000,000, your model 1,260,000 deaths, actual deaths 968. A reasoned person might conclude such a simplistic approach was wrong and try to learn more.’
So what? Has the virus run it’s course in Japan? What will the final total be if no vaccine is possible?
I have reports in Japan. The response from the population to the perceived risk is and continues to be carefully observed.
With the R rate dangerously near 1 or probably spilling well over in Bournmouth, Liverpool etc and with the impending pub and restuarant bonanza on 4th July the prospects are dire. I will not feel “safe” unless R is down to 0.5 or less and deaths well below 100 per day.
I don’t either
I’d love to book a week away in AUgust
I’m not doing so
[…] What are the odds on coronavirus? Worse than most people think is the one thing we can say Tax Research UK […]
Since the genie is well and truly out of the bottle, Covid-19 is now an infectious disease we will have to live with. It is in pretty much every community in the country, and with a proportion of cases being asymptomatic (85% in an Austrian study quoted in the papers today) there is no practical means to eradicate it.
So the issue becomes, what is a level at which the country would be prepared to tolerate it at? No one is likely to state a figure openly, but I suspect the way things are moving steady state will turn out to be 1000-2000 actual new cases a day (under 500 diagnosed). There will be a few minor resurgences which will need to be dealt with, though experience suggests those are more significant from crowded indoor environments (meat packing factories) than outdoor events (there was no obvious response to the BLM demonstrations).
Whether relaxation is too soon, or should have been done sooner, is really only possible to say in retrospect. But to be fair to them, the Government – any Government – has to make a decision in real time. My personal suspicion is that there will be a few scares, on the scale of the localised norovirus or measles outbreaks we are used to reading about, but that is tolerable given that so much of the public is now seeing less risk and long term maintenance of lockdown would need police state tactics. And the continued freezing of normal education and health provision etc.
I wish you were right
No epidemiologist that I talk to thinks that you are remotely so
You don’t even seem to realise the time delay factor to outdoor events
Professor John Edmunds of the London the School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine has just been interviewed on C4 News. His major concern seemed less about people failing to observe social distancing on a beach, than that of the critical importance of a very effective test and trace system. He does not appear convinced the system developed in England, centralised, with links to local, conventional public health test and trace methods, is satisfactory.
My understanding of that new system, with the lofty world-beating aspirations of the Government that have not been met (compared for example with conventional local public health methods being used in Europe and Scotland) is based on centralised, privatised methods, such as contracts with large companies and new procedures under the leadership of Dido Harding; who is not – as far as I know – a Public Health Professional. I understand she was with Mckinsey, and is a businesswoman.
This looks to me like a classic neoliberal solution to a Government problem (a problem that shouldn’t have existed if the traditional local public health system in England had never been dismantled over 10 years under the disguise of austerity). You work out the consequences.
I have
Wave 2
Did you see the Cumbrian case study before that?
The Barrow-in-Furness phenomenon; higher rate of infection, but also a much higher test rate than elsewhere. As I understand it, good old-fashioned public health and NHS test and trace is the main reason; because they know what they are doing. Nevertheless, Colin Cox, the Director of Public Health for Cumbria did not think that was the whole explanation.
A coda to this evidence is that some Scots in the Borders have been complaining vociferously that Scotland is not leaving lockdown fast enough; businesses are handicapped, because people will just go to Carlisle to shop etc. We should follow England. This is not very wise advice, but the Borders is one of the last Scottish redoubts of totally obtuse, unreconstructed Conservative, Brexit, Blind, Unionism; no matter what, this ideology. Mundell is a local MP. You can tell them anywhere, but you can’t tell them anything; even if it is in their best interests and also of everyone else. It is also redolent of the instant answer, short-term solutions that plague Britain endlessly.
If Scotland can squeeze down tight enough on infection rates, and build on its sound test and trace process; that is where real and sustainable economic recovery will emerge.
Hi,
You should apply for sainthood.
The ammount of idiots/Trolls trying to prevent any kind of proper discussion is mindblowing and still you try to reason with people there is no possibility of having a sabe discussion with…
You’re a Saint.
People have no idea how limited they are, that much this pandemia has helped to show.
All the best.
PS- some countries have a 100% match between excess mortality and COVID oficial mortality. I am yet to see any proper evidence that there is significant non Covid excess mortality going on.
At times I despair. I have just heard someone on BBC Radio Scotland from the ‘Intergenerational Foundation’ (?), or similar self-promoting, self-important ‘think-tank’ (where do they find them – is there a neoliberal think-tank manual in the BBC?). In any case, this self-appointed ‘expert’ in I still have no idea what, argued that lockdown was a mistake; the young have paid the price, and should not have been locked down to keep the economy going (without noticing that there is increasing evidence that those who survive Covid-19 may suffer severe long-term health damage). We cannot keep running up the National Debt as we have done after 2008 and now; because we need the resources in case there is a real crisis – like a future pandemic.
The BBC is giving airtime to this guff, and the interviewer appeared persuaded to noise an element of agreement. At leat that is what I took from it.
I have occasionally interacted with this lot and I have never been impressed
The following programme, a bland magazine programme of chattering trivia, manages to produce a commentator suggesting that even local lockdowns will not work, and that we do not understand enough about the virus (not the Government, or the people – the virus) to know whether lockdowns work.
The level of discussion is banal, but am I losing the plot in wondering whether we are seeing the hand of British misinformation propaganda peddling its politically British Government convenient message; that the new ‘conventional wisdom’ (aka guff) is attempting to find a foothold with the public, or is this just farcical British wish fulfilment?
You may well be right
British Government’s politically convenient message – and even that is a badly constructed phrase.
Coffee required.