In the UK none of the countries is testing the population, or a random sample of the population.
“If you do not have symptoms,do not book a test”
One English town has tested, and been criticized for the number of +be results.
Iceland did this months ago.
Seek not and ye shall not find. (Misquote)
There is evidence that for many who only get mild symptoms the body’s first line defence mechanism destroys the virus
So the adaptive immune system (antibodies) is never needed – and none will be produced.
If so any antibody survey to obtain estimated national infection rates will grossly underestimate the number of people who have already had the virus.
I just read an interesting statistic, comparing Japan and the US. Japan has about 40% of the population (120M vs 300M). The TOTAL number of cases there is about equal to the highest SINGLE DAY number in the US (about 70,000). Unless you believe the Japanese have some unique genetic anti-predisposition – and there’s no reason to believe they have – there must be some other reason, especially considering that Japan is one of the most crowded places in the world. They have done a modest lockdown but nothing extraordinary.
Could it perhaps be that…
(a) the Japanese almost never touch each other, except very close family
(b) they’re used to wearing masks and went into full mask mode very early on
(c) their culture values society higher than the individual – no BS about “my freedom” or “my rights” or “I’m entitled to…”.
Maoraigh wrote:
In the UK none of the countries is testing the population, or a random sample of the population.
The ONS has conducted several rounds of randomised testing in the UK, with the recent rounds sampling around 25,000 people per round, selected reasonably randomly, and specifically excluding hospital and care home settings.
See here for the latest update; headlines: around 6% have antibodies, with over 10% in London.
They are planning an increase this to 150,000 people (source)
@Maoraigh, I am not surprised you did not hear about it, it has not been widely reported.
@johnh, my guess is (b), followed by (a) combined with a generally much higher standards of hygiene. A lot less obesity, especially in the older population, helps the death rate.
As always, the number of positive cases is difficult to compare because of vastly different testing regimes.
This is anecdotal information, but Moscow Milongas (where people dance Argentine tango in close embrace) have been open since mid-July (unofficially, some were open before). I would say roughly 20% of the people dancing now have had Covid and recovered. I know many personally. The remaining 80% have clearly been exposed (repeatedly) and simply don’t come down with it. (Either that, or they lack symptoms and were never tested.)
Many family members of people who get sick never come down with it (or show no symptoms). They almost always are tested. My son (22) did not get it. A son (16) of close friends who got sick—same story. But it’s not just youths who show immunity. Middle aged husbands and wives often show no symptoms when their second half gets sick.
Many people just don’t get it and the overwhelming majority of cases simply don’t require hospitalization.
Maybe my experience is some wild outlier that contradicts the message of mass media…
Some people are unlucky. I don’t know a single case myself, but I have heard of healthy, athletic people in their 50’s who have been hospitalized with serious cases. But in my experience, that is relatively rare.
I’m not trying to belittle the disease, but it mostly kills the vulnerable, or people who were on their way out already. Yesterday I spoke to an elderly woman who mentioned a friend (78 at death) who died of Covid. He had Parkinson’s and many other conditions. “He never took care of himself” she said (drank, smoked, did not exercise).
WhiskeyPapa wrote:
but I have heard of healthy, athletic people in their 50’s who have been hospitalized with serious cases.
Yes, this exactly describes a friend in Milan. He pulled through, but AFAIK came a bit too close to death for comfort.
Now take a hypothetical case of someone who has not been exposed but who is in the “older generation” for example. If that person goes out now
what is his prognosis?
The “possible fact” that the disease has already killed all those it was going to kill is of no help to this person, statistically.
And there are lots of people like that – basically most people living in the countryside and not hanging out in bars etc.
This is why I do not buy the “the disease has already killed all those it was going to kill” – because you would merely need to pop into some shop and that would be your end. It would show up in the mortality numbers which would refuse to go down. But they are remaining low
There must be another explanation, apart from the infection numbers being massively inflated. It could be that the deaths are really concentrated in dense cities and possibly specific communities, which obviously they are – this is a piece of the UK; there appears to be no such map for France
and the countryside has been almost totally bypassed. However, that would mean a person from the countryside travelling into a city is very likely to get a nasty case (subject to existing heath etc).
This is a plausible scenario because, according to current reports from people I know, trains and buses are running almost empty. For example almost nobody is travelling between Brighton (on the south coast directly below London on the above map) and its surrounding countryside, and London.
IOW, the disease has stopped killing people not because it has got all those it could get but because
But still, measurable immunity even in cities is at a low level (London say 20% antibody positive) so there must be another immunity factor – as widely suspected now. So there is a third factor
and also we have two more, which accounted for roughly 1/2 of the deaths
It is true that many people who are vulnerable are super careful. If they stop being careful, they dramatically escalate the risk for themselves. It’s also true that “rich” people with second homes and large residences (and airplanes :)) have a much easier time protecting vulnerable members of their family and close friends than do poor people.
I see a highly segregated situation: vulnerable people still on lock down and many others out and about….
Peter wrote:
the disease has stopped killing people not because it has got all those it could get
I think one significant factor in this is that the doctors now know more about it and how to treat patients. e.g. that ventilators do not help, but blood thinners do, one of many factors.
Also people have, protestors and other covidiots aside, learnt how to live with social distancing and are doing things they should have done always such as washing their hands, stop kissing people they do not live with and generally stop pigging around. What has contributed also was the warm weather, where people were predominantly outside where it is much easier to keep your distance.
Masks are now generally accepted and used, again with the exception of the protester crowd.
However, it is way too early to think it’s over. Personally I predict a total meltdown now the cold season is coming and driving people indoors again, now that many countries have adopted the American approach and decided to open the floodwalls with mass events and other reckless behaviour. This will bring on the 2nd wave and a test of several half baked wishful thinking ideas that people are immune.
Mankind is unable to learn from the past…. otherwise they would read up on the Spanish and Russian Flu epidemics and be afraid, very afraid of the 2nd and 3rd wave. Maybe it really takes everyone loosing loved ones and mass illness and so on before the message sinks in.
