Troubling (Covid 19 related)

[Seeker]

They virus tested almost the whole crew (4800 personnel) of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt of those that had it most showed no symptoms.

https://tinyurl.com/y8zxtx9t

Unless a vaccine is developed the only way the virus can be managed is to test everyone and given the number of current UK daily tests, that's not happening soon.

[daktulos]

Originally Posted by Seeker

They virus tested almost the whole crew (4800 personnel) of the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt of those that had it most showed no symptoms.

https://tinyurl.com/y8zxtx9t

Unless a vaccine is developed the only way the virus can be managed is to test everyone and given the number of current UK daily tests, that's not happening soon.

I think this is positive news. It means two things:

1. more people have immunity than we realise.

2. the death rate is lower (as a percentage of infections) than has been reported.

The problem with testing everyone (at this point) is what are you going to do with that information? You can't isolate everyone, and there would be too many cases for contact tracing. You'd also need to test people regularly (daily?) for any confidence that they haven't caught it since testing.

Whether you test or not, the most vulnerable need to be isolated until a vaccine is available. Social distancing is clearly working well enough to slow the rate of hospital admissions.

[keith_d]

I read a similar report where all the occupants of a village on the German/Dutch border were tested for antibodies to the corona virus and something like 15% of people tested positive for exposure.

This testing was criticised for not being sufficiently selective, other corona viruses may have caused false positives, but if the the number were accurate the fatality rate would have only been two or three times worse than regular influenza.

Still nasty, but not the end of the world as we know it.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by daktulos

I think this is positive news.
1. more people have immunity than we realise.

I'm unsure how you got to that conclusion. What it says to me is that anyone can be a carrier of the virus and show no symptoms but are still capable of passing on the virus. Not showing symptoms but still spreading the disease might be great for the individual but still dangerous for society. Statistically one infected person spreads it to 2.6 others.

If we identify all carriers then containing the virus would be easier by only isolating those people instead of the whole country. The alternative would be to accept that everybody is going to have to catch it and hope that most survive.

[Craig380]

Data from China published in the British Medical Journal showed that 80% of those testing positive for CV were asymptomatic. So yes, considering the ****-poor testing regime the UK has, you could estimate that the actual number of people infected in the UK is up to 5x the current number. Immunity is building up slowly, but there are still huge numbers of vulnerable people.

To Seeker's point, the Government's original aim was 'herd immunity', but that was based on the extremely flawed premise that a majority of UK citizens are healthy and would be able to get CV and have mild to moderate symptoms. But we're not healthy. 28% of UK adults are clinically obese, for a start. Then millions have long-term conditions like diabetes, COPD, severe asthma etc. These groups are extremely vulnerable to CV.

That's why the Government did the screeching u-turn from 'keep calm and carry on' to LOCKDOWN NOW in March. Testing needs to hit Hatt Mancock's goal of 100,000 per day so that CV hot-spots can be found and isolated, and to allow those that have had CV to return to work, while shielding those that haven't.

[daktulos]

Originally Posted by Seeker

I'm unsure how you got to that conclusion. What it says to me is that anyone can be a carrier of the virus and show no symptoms but are still capable of passing on the virus. Not showing symptoms but still spreading the disease might be great for the individual but still dangerous for society. Statistically one infected person spreads it to 2.6 others.

If we identify all carriers then containing the virus would be easier by only isolating those people instead of the whole country. The alternative would be to accept that everybody is going to have to catch it and hope that most survive.

If more people are asymptomatic, then more people will have had it without realising it, so more people will (hopefully) have immunity.

The problem with isolating people with infection is that it's always too late. You can't test everyone daily, and people will always become infected. So, you would need to isolate everyone, which is impossible.

I think we need to accept that until a vaccine is available, everyone who is going to catch it will. The social-distancing is working to slow the rate, giving hospitals capacity and time for treatments to be made available which will reduce the death rate.

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by daktulos

So, you would need to isolate everyone, which is impossible.

Again, I'm unsure why you think this is impossible when most of the country is on lockdown right now.

Originally Posted by daktulos

If more people are asymptomatic, then more people will have had it without realising it, so more people will (hopefully) have immunity.

This is the herd immunity idea but it involves letting a lot of susceptible people die.

If you're trying to contain an outbreak you need to know where it is. On average you carry the virus for 5 days before showing any symptoms but during that time (and afterwards) you're contagious. Wide scale testing would allow you to focus on the hot spots. If you test negative but show symptoms later you get tested again and we'd know that the area you were in may be a potential hot spot.

[daktulos]

Originally Posted by Seeker

Again, I'm unsure why you think this is impossible when most of the country is on lockdown right now.

There's a difference - we can still get deliveries as the delivery drivers aren't isolated. We can go to shops, etc. You can't isolate everyone, but you can get (almost) everyone to agree to social distancing.

This is the herd immunity idea but it involves letting a lot of susceptible people die.

If you're trying to contain an outbreak you need to know where it is. On average you carry the virus for 5 days before showing any symptoms but during that time (and afterwards) you're contagious. Wide scale testing would allow you to focus on the hot spots. If you test negative but show symptoms later you get tested again and we'd know that the area you were in may be a potential hot spot.

You can't contain this, it's too big. Everywhere is a hot-spot. All you can do is try and protect the vulnerable - this is where testing is lacking: care home staff. You can't test everyone, it has to be targeted. As my wife says, "who exactly is going to do all this testing?"

[Seeker]

Originally Posted by daktulos

You can't contain this, it's too big.

you won't with that attitude

Germany has been testing 50,000 people/day and their death rate is very low, but they have test labs dotted around the country, ours are centralised which makes a bottleneck.

Originally Posted by daktulos

There's a difference - we can still get deliveries as the delivery drivers aren't isolated.

So you start with testing healthcare professionals, police, firemen etc, then you move onto other people that interact with the public - delivery drivers, shopworkers, before testing the rest of the population.

You're argument seems to be it's too big so we shouldn't try and yet other countries have successfully implemented exactly what I've said. I agree our biggest problem is that we don't have the testing facilities (yet?) and truthfully I have little faith in our government to organise wide scale testing. I don't agree that it's an impracticable idea though, we're just abysmal at organisation.

[daktulos]

Before I say more, I just wanted to say that I'm not trying to argue this, and realise that people have different (and valid) opinions - even amongst global leaders and experts. I doubt anyone will know what the right approach was for at least five years. That said ...

Originally Posted by Seeker

you won't with that attitude

Germany has been testing 50,000 people/day and their death rate is very low, but they have test labs dotted around the country, ours are centralised which makes a bottleneck.

Fair point ... but using Germany's 50k test per day number, you could test the UK population in just under four years. Once. I think there's a strong argument for testing where it'll do the most good.

Also, bear in mind that different countries have very different cultures and economies. You can't take one factor and make inferences from it - there are so many possibilities. Maybe Germans shake hands less, or live further apart, or maybe the government fortifies their flour with vitamin D. Who knows ...

So you start with testing healthcare professionals, police, firemen etc, then you move onto other people that interact with the public - delivery drivers, shopworkers, before testing the rest of the population.

You're argument seems to be it's too big so we shouldn't try and yet other countries have successfully implemented exactly what I've said. I agree our biggest problem is that we don't have the testing facilities (yet?) and truthfully I have little faith in our government to organise wide scale testing. I don't agree that it's an impracticable idea though, we're just abysmal at organisation.

I agree totally about testing people who are most affected and who are most needed to support the economy. It's not going to stop the spread of the virus, though.

The current plan is to protect the most vulnerable (isolation), reduce spread (social distancing and isolation with symptoms) and attempt to reduce the death rate of those who get it. There are limited resources (people, tests facilities) and widespread testing may not be the best use of them.

Something like the convalescent plasma trials are a much better use of resources than using the same resources for a few extra tests which will have little impact.