94% of English adults have Covid antibodies, ONS data shows
thetimes.co.uk
thetimes.co.uk
The only way to judge the effectiveness of measures is to see how many people have actually been infected, not to count "confirmed" cases.
For instance, it seems only 8.8% is confirmed (or 88k out of 1 million) [1] . Add that to the 69% vaccinated with at least one dose [2], and you get 77.8% accounted for, which is less than the 95% quoted.
[1] - https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
[2] - https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explor...
Hong Kong requires 2 weeks quarantine even for vaccinated people entering, unless they have proof not only of vaccination, but of antibody count.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/abou...
The circles indicate nucleocapsid (i.e., infection only) while the squares indicate spike (i.e., infection or vaccination).
So, Puerto Rico is 70% infected and/or vaccinated (a square). Whereas NY is 13% infected (a circle).
There's also a blood bank antibody test. That's useful as a crosscheck. People who have blood drawn for medical purposes are in general sicker than average, and those who donate blood are healthier than average. So those set bounds on the measured values.
Can anyone provide links to recent peer-reviewed primary sources that estimate the number of individuals who have been infected in the U.S.?
If ~70% of people are asymptomatic, and we assume just about everyone has been exposed to and infected by the virus - haven't we already achieved herd immunity in the U.S.?
EDIT: Answered in solid source provided by animats - the seroprevalance estimate for the U.S. is 21.6% (95% CI - 21.2% to 22.22%). I also found a couple recent primary sources regarding the asymptomatic rate, see thread below.
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
This is why using PCR tests cranked up to absurd cycle counts isn't the best way to determine _infection_.
All the data shows that vaccination provides protection, but with all these new variants coming out (expect more over time), I don't believe herd immunity is any more possible than herd immunity with the flu or common cold.
This seems to me to be a very strange thing to say.
We know precisely what the pattern is for herd immunity in the case of a coronavirus, because four of them cause what you are calling a "common cold". It's endemic equilibrium. To my knowledge, there is no dispute among experts on this point.
So to say that we can't achieve herd immunity because of its similarity to a virus against which we are indeed herd immune is, at best, begging the question.
If you have six minutes, this is a very acute description of the endemic equilibrium effect of herd immunity: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RsmDJYhteQs
Don't know if they have a part in this, but at least it's extremely profitable for pharma to assume there's no immunity but what they provide.
> The fact that more people are in the hospital in Florida right now than at any time in the last two years
THIS IS NOT TRUE.
The metric you are describing is hospital census, which is _not_ at an all-time high right now.
What is at an all time high? The percentage of people in the hospital who have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2, regardless of their presentation.
The roundtable just yesterday confirmed that there are hospitals which have near 100% positivity, despite 80% presenting for things unrelated to a respiratory infection.
Some people are there for blunt trauma or routine surgery, but have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2.
I just don't understand the point of constantly misrepresenting this metric. It muddies the waters of actual concerns about the spread of the virus by making it seem like those are are concerned are dishonest.
Stop it.
With regards to metrics that are peaking, FT reports that "Occupancy in the south-eastern US state’s intensive care units is on course to hit an all-time high by this weekend." (But then again, I've no idea whether this is actually accurate since they don't cite their source. Besides, it's clearly an extrapolation.) https://www.ft.com/content/21ed4e9c-2b20-4a9d-bf38-6b76212be...
Then, there's a quote to that effect from a doctor, specific to their hospital.
https://www.politico.com/states/florida/story/2021/08/02/flo...
> I just don't understand the point of constantly misrepresenting this metric. It muddies the waters of actual concerns about the spread of the virus by making it seem like those are are concerned are dishonest.
> Stop it.
That must be this "projection" I keep hearing about.
Hospital census is not what's at an all-time (or 2-year) high. SARS-CoV-2+ tests among admitted patients ("Covid-19 hospitalizations") are.
These are not the same thing.
>Stop it.
It's hopeless. The exact same thing happened last year, driven off of media that loved talking about how the local hospital is at the brink of collapse because "the ICU is 90% full". The few voices that pointed out that 90% ICU occupancy is a) normal and b) what hospitals plan for were overwhelmed.
The only time US hospitals anywhere were actually overrun with patients was a brief time in NYC in March 2020. Even that cleared up quickly; the US military hospital ship sent to NYC was barely used and soon left, and I don't believe the one sent to LA was used at all. All those tents built in hospital parking lots everywhere? Not used either.
The source provided by animats puts the seroprevalence at 21.6% for the U.S. I think that should be a lower bound of the number of individuals who have been infected, given antibody levels wane over time (even though immunity does not necessarily wane).
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/burd...
I did some digging, here is the paper outlining the methods and data sources for the numbers on the page you linked to [1]. That paper cites two other papers used to estimate the asymptomatic proportion [2][3].
Here is a more recent systematic review [4], which estimates that at least 33% of infections are asymptomatic.
And another recent paper which estimates the lower bound for asymptomatic proportion (AP) to be 37%, with an upper bound of 67% [5]. "The estimated AP varied with age, from 74% (95% CI 65–90%) for < 20 years, to 61% (95% CI 57–65%) for the 50–59 years age-group." [5]
[1] Estimated Incidence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Illness and Hospitalization—United States, February–September 2020 https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/72/12/e1010/6000389
[2] Estimating the extent of asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: Systematic review and meta-analysis https://jammi.utpjournals.press/doi/pdf/10.3138/jammi-2020-0...
[3] Age-dependent effects in the transmission and control of COVID-19 epidemics https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9
[4] The Proportion of SARS-CoV-2 Infections That Are Asymptomatic https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M20-6976
[5] Estimating the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infection in the general population: Analysis of nationwide serosurvey data in the Netherlands https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00768-y
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s...
To clarify your point: this leads you to the conclusion that the asymptomatic proportion is likely under-estimated? And conversely, the symptomatic proportion is likely over-estimated?
[warning: tinfoil hat...] Can you think of an incentive for governments to be honest with such "in the wild" data?
If you were a senior politician trying to assist your government in driving up the vaccination rate, then publishing hard data that 94% of your population already have the antibiodies is hardly going to help, is it?
In the U.S. why shouldn't we just shoot for herd immunity now? Not sure how effective restrictions and mandates will be in slowing things down and the costs to mental health and quality of life are so high.
EDIT: Guess I worded that badly. What I mean is: choosing herd immunity is inevitable, so there is no choice. It will happen.
EDIT2: It didn't occur to me that there is a huge risk if more deadly mutations happen faster than herd immunity.
[1] https://www.brgeneral.org/news-blog/2021/july/can-i-get-covi...
Unless anyone can cite peer-reviewed sources that indicate otherwise, there doesn't appear to be any conclusive evidence on this point. In fact these publications provide evidence that naturally acquired immunity is just as effective as vaccination [1][2] ([2] hasn't been peer-reviewed yet).
> How long vaccine immunity lasts is an open question. So far, it's at least N months, where N is how long the vaccines have been in wide use. Beyond that is speculation.
I'm interested in recent peer-reviewed literature supporting this point, and would be grateful if anyone could share links.
[1] SARS-CoV-2 infection induces long-lived bone marrow plasma cells in humans https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4.pdf
[2] Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...
Those field hospitals are surge capacity; and work with hurricanes and earthquakes where a single part of the country is affected. You can bring in volunteers and reservists from other areas to create capacity.
When the emergency is everywhere, and on-going, all of your surge capacity is gone.
But we don't do that. Instead we act surprised every time there's a surge, the media feeds off it and everyone starts infighting. I'm not convinced hospital capacity is really the problem people say it is.
Take your pick from:
a) They were a bit of a PR gimmick? Better for gov't to be seen to do _something_ than standing around wringing your hands and hoping things will improve...?
b) They couldn't be staffed and equipped to provide appropriate and useful additional care?
c) General hospitals were perhaps not quite as close to being overwhelmed as was reported?
There were stories that German hospitals may have been slightly economical with the truth in terms of obtaining additional funding for ICU beds, which perhaps weren't needed or even ever created[0]
[0] https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/corona-hilfen-schummelei-1-3...
Such techniques have proven to be very effective at preventing hospitalization and death for SARS-CoV-2 [1][2], yet you will rarely find anyone advocating for them.
The papers I've cited are some of the most highly cited in the literature, with world-wide support from experts at top institutions who are actually treating COVID-19 patients.
These alternatives to vaccination are likely more palatable for the anti-vax crowd, and can help prevent over-utilization of precious medical resources.
[1] Pathophysiological Basis and Rationale for Early Outpatient Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) Infection https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltex...
[2] Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) https://scholarlycommons.henryford.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?a...
Doesn't this come back (yet again) to the financial incentives?
Go to FDA.gov and read up on "Emergency Use Authorization"[0]:
> FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.
If it were to turn out that an existing (possibly cheap? maybe even a generic? ) over-the-counter medicine is a good treatment for C19 then that would undercut the business plans of Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca and co.
Asking "cui bono" has never been more appropriate.
[0] https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-...
The arrival of delta (and the other four or five major strains) signal that that theory flat-out will not work, the virus is mutating faster than we are reaching herd immunity. By the time we actually reach full herd immunity, we will have strains that the vaccine only provides significantly diminished protection against - we are arguably already getting there with Delta.
That's not quite true. I know people who are not anti-vax, nor anti-mask, but they have an aversion to a new untested vaccine.
It's a bit like measuring outputs rather than outcomes.
[1]: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2103825?query=TOC
What I would be looking for is a study showing that prior infection has x% effectiveness as measured against a vaccine on a similar timeline.
GP's takeaway that "The vaccine results in more robust immunity" is completely unsupported by the provided source.
Can you cite a source for this? I see people saying it, but I haven't seen actual cases.
Has anyone, to your knowledge, explained why they might pursue such an insane misapplication of basic principles of public health?
Even my job has said that you have to be vaccinated to return (limited medical and religious exceptions). They also said it wouldn't make sense to keep the unvaccinated people working remotely, implying that they will fire people. They are not accepting antibody tests.
https://www.fox26houston.com/news/hospital-workers-prepare-t...
Meanwhile we have Australia deploying the military to enforce acute lockdowns because they failed to secure enough vaccines early on.
The short answer is that schools probably should not be open at all. Even with the vaccine, you are talking about a disease that (even in mild cases) is known to cause subtle long-term damage to organs, it's really not a good idea to tempt fate in a growing kid, particularly with the potential for multiple recurring infections over time from different strains.
If you did want to re-open schools safely, you would have to require vaccinations, you would also have to restructure significant parts of the school "experience" - like having classes and bus transportation be significantly smaller and more spaced out, having class groups stay fixed and having teachers move between class groups rather than vice versa, etc. And all of that would be far more expensive - we would need more teachers, more classrooms, more busses, etc.
The reality is we're just throwing kids under the bus to die, because it would be expensive and inconvenient to do it right, and we can't not reopen schools because a lot of people depend on it as daycare and because a lot of people have decided we're "back to normal" regardless of what happens with future variants. Just like people have decided that we're done with masks and they're not putting them back on ever again, regardless of what the CDC says.
Open for business baby.
What the hell are you talking about? The CDC has said children are at less risk of death from Covid-19 than they are from influenza. Were we "throwing them under the bus to die" when we opened schools in every year before 2020 without masks and "stay apart from your biohazard friends" social distancing?
Also, "Study shows schools do not spread Covid": https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/75136706-f171-11eb-8f01-2...
> we can't not reopen schools because a lot of people depend on it as daycare and because a lot of people have decided we're "back to normal" regardless of what happens with future variants
No, it's because an education is a fundamental human right which is being denied to children, and the policy of closing schools has caused immense damage to their learning and mental health for practically zero benefit in reducing the harm caused by the virus.
Where people mask up, and when the area has low covid levels, students don't spread that much. Once the area takes off, the schools do indeed spread. (Which is kind of an obvious statement when you think about it, like of course kids don't magically have COVID when nobody else does, but also that they can spread it once an area starts getting a significant infection rate.)
I don't think going back to school in a state that has banned schools from masking up, during the surge of delta variant we're currently undergoing, is particularly safe at all, no.
> No, it's because an education is a fundamental human right which is being denied to children, and the policy of closing schools has caused immense damage to their learning and mental health for practically zero benefit in reducing the harm caused by the virus.
It's great that you have such strongly-held values! Then you won't mind spending the money to expand schools appropriately so a safe environment can be maintained, since the education of children is such a critical social outcome.
Like, I remember my high school and 25 kids was a small class, and hell no we weren't 6 feet apart. Explain to me how we get 2500 people 6 feet away from each other in a building that was designed to serve 2000 students that are 2 feet away from each other. That's the question that has to be answered to reopen safely.
Once schools are reopen en-masse, instead of just a limited basis (that allows spacing), we're going to have to address that capacity problem. Or more realistically, we just won't, and if the kids spread then oh well.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/cdc-covid-19-coronavirus-vaccin...
Lack of education is a greater risk for children (and society as a whole) than any virus.
There were just 3 waves and there wasn't a 4th one after last opening, but this might be due to vaccinations (esp of teachers) and horrible first 3 waves that might have infected most children and their families.
Same with slowing the spread. People did not listen.
Because they were "free critical thinkers who can reach their own conclusions thank you very much". And they were wrong. And now they've put us here.
Well apparently quite a number of people must have taken precautions, because that's the explanation for why the flu has basically disappeared off the face of the earth.
Even small measures affect the numbers.
Because, like I said, the flu is far less contagious.
That's not the case in the SF Bay Area where vaccination rates are very high, keeping hospitalizations and ICU use low, yet mask mandates were reimposed here. We have plenty of ICU capacity.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthan...
Much more detail, more rigorous, primary source, and no pay wall.
(@dang: maybe use this as the post's URL?)
> While antibody positivity in the oldest age groups remains high, it decreased slightly in some regions and countries. This means that some people in these groups did not have enough antibodies to be detected in the test, not that they do not have any immune protection against the virus.
I found that sentence intriguing, here is the link they recommend for more information to explain why people might still have immune protection even with low (undetectable) levels of antibodies [1].
[1] https://blog.ons.gov.uk/2021/04/28/antibodies-and-immunity-h...
* UK cases spike. They go from 3 cases per 100K people in May to 71 cases per 100K in mid-July. That's the increased R0 of the Delta variant in action. Now they're declining rapidly, down to 39 cases per 100K people. Keep watching that graph; that shows herd immunity starting to take effect.
* US cases are way up, too, but started later than in the UK. The US curve is still going up, following the UK curve, but about a month behind. That's why medical authorities are saying the next two months will be really bad in the US.
* The US has about the same case rate as Tunisia, but a far lower death rate. Without good medical care, this is a killer disease.
[1] https://ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=eur&areas=usa&are...
Wakefield then ran away to US and Brits lived happily ever after ... till Brexit.
At least that's what's postulated here https://youtu.be/8BIcAZxFfrc
The first is that from very early on the PM was flanked by medical professionals who appeared to be apolitical and were considered by all 'sides' on the vaccine debate to be honest (even if their opinions were sometimes contentious). That credibility meant they were listened to.
The second is that the NHS is almost a religion over here - this contributes to the medical profession being extremely well trusted.
In many places in the world the frontline medical staff are trusted but the system isn't. We're lucky here in that largely both aspects retain their respect. Note that I'm not commenting on other nations health systems or their population's opinion of it. We (the UK) are not unique in having reasonable healthcare; this is more about our high perception of the system providing it.
Finally, as a society we are very compliant, and also with the not-for-profit AZ vaccine there was a certain feeling of a national champion who was also helping to save the world.
- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01442-9
- https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01557-z
... actually implies that we do not need widespread vaccination campaigns.
But guess what stocks the members of your government have in their depot and you bet they make sure you get your jab and the booster and the update and another booster ...
This is biggest scam in the history of the earth.
This doesn't mean that the only choice is opening up everything, but eventually... yes. Concious governments should first try to get more people vaccinated. Long covid is too frequent, otherwise. (400k have it in UK, see: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/07/01/almost-400000-ha... )
Q: Is there something about this that we need to worry about particularly?
I ask in the context of having had the Epstein-Barr virus in my late 30s and having been essentially knocked completely flat by it for the best part of a month, and not having recovered to full fitness for several months more.
When I was a child, my Dad had shingles (apparently for the first time) in his late 40s, he was really quite poorly, that also took him months to get over.
Endemic viruses already do this stuff, if you've even had a proper dose of seasonal flu you'll know what I'm taking about.
Is there a reason (and non-anecdotal data...) to specifically worry about the long-term effects of C19 _more_ than all the other endemic viruses?
Because as a rural-by-birth American who has travelled a bit, I’d say Berlin beats London or even urban USA in their awful haircut percentage by a wide margin. But nobody can top central Indiana, USA for sheer quantity of nasty-ass mullets with scraggly mustaches.
* it is clear everyone will get it
* policy will be slow to adapt to that reality and continue strategy of containment