3 ms·

In the UK they only found 1,543 cases from 44,000 tests. That would seem to imply they're either incredibly unlucky with the testing, or it's not as quietly wid

by aidos 7y ago

In the UK they only found 1,543 cases from 44,000 tests. That would seem to imply they're either incredibly unlucky with the testing, or it's not as quietly widespread as one might hope.

arcticbull 7y ago
If uniformally randomly distributed that would imply a 3% population infection rate today, with an R0 of 2-3, 100% of the population either has had it or will have it by the end of next week. That would be wildly past the tipping point. Until we have an antibody test we can only know who has it right now, if you’ve had it more than 2 weeks ago you’re not going to test positive.
- aidos 7y ago
  I’m not going to argue on the statistics, because I don’t quite get it. You seem to be implying that maybe there are a load of us that had it already (and maybe, hopefully, that’s the case). But if so, doesn’t it seem weird that we’ve basically watched its progress as it’s spread around the world? Why would most people get it and be asymptotic followed by a series of unlucky people that are getting it now and falling ill? Though again, maybe I’m misunderstanding.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    I'm kinda spitballing here too. > You seem to be implying that maybe there are a load of us that had it already (and maybe, hopefully, that’s the case). Yep, and that as a result our mortality projections from CFR are quite overstated. > But if so, doesn’t it seem weird that we’ve basically watched its progress as it’s spread around the world? I wouldn't be shocked to see a retrospective on this in the future tell us that we've been seeing the spread of availability of the test rather than the disease. > Why would most people get it and be asymptotic followed by a series of unlucky people that are getting it now and falling ill? Symptoms are basically the same as the flu for most people (Korea has a 0% CFR under 29, and 0.1% under 49), and for older folks, well, they're older, and basically anything can kill them. Some studies showed a fatality rate of 10% for the H1N1 flu -- and so far we're seeing a CFR of 15% for old folks in Korea. It's possible the fatalities we'd been seeing were written off as just that.
    - aidos 7y ago
      > I wouldn't be shocked to see a retrospective on this in the future tell us that we've been seeing the spread of availability of the test rather than the disease. Ok, I could buy into that (and I really hope that's the case - though I'm still doubtful). The main thing I didn't realise was that the tests didn't show who had had it. Thanks for taking the time to work your point through with me.
  - dchichkov 7y ago
    "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." — William Gibson
- Majromax 7y ago
  > If uniformally randomly distributed It's certainly not uniformly distributed. Testing is not random. Typical test guidelines are to test when some combination of the following are present: * Flu-like symptoms, after ruling out all other infectious causes * Travel to a known outbreak region * Close contact with a confirmed or strongly-suspected case Asymptomatic people without known exposure are left untested (as is sensible to economize resources), and even people with mild symptoms but no known exposure may be left untested -- this makes it particularly difficult to catch the early stages of community spread, before people have had time to be hospitalized.

by aidos 7y ago

In the UK they only found 1,543 cases from 44,000 tests. That would seem to imply they're either incredibly unlucky with the testing, or it's not as quietly widespread as one might hope.

arcticbull 7y ago

If uniformally randomly distributed that would imply a 3% population infection rate today, with an R0 of 2-3, 100% of the population either has had it or will have it by the end of next week. That would be wildly past the tipping point. Until we have an antibody test we can only know who has it right now, if you’ve had it more than 2 weeks ago you’re not going to test positive.

aidos 7y ago
I’m not going to argue on the statistics, because I don’t quite get it. You seem to be implying that maybe there are a load of us that had it already (and maybe, hopefully, that’s the case). But if so, doesn’t it seem weird that we’ve basically watched its progress as it’s spread around the world? Why would most people get it and be asymptotic followed by a series of unlucky people that are getting it now and falling ill? Though again, maybe I’m misunderstanding.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  I'm kinda spitballing here too. > You seem to be implying that maybe there are a load of us that had it already (and maybe, hopefully, that’s the case). Yep, and that as a result our mortality projections from CFR are quite overstated. > But if so, doesn’t it seem weird that we’ve basically watched its progress as it’s spread around the world? I wouldn't be shocked to see a retrospective on this in the future tell us that we've been seeing the spread of availability of the test rather than the disease. > Why would most people get it and be asymptotic followed by a series of unlucky people that are getting it now and falling ill? Symptoms are basically the same as the flu for most people (Korea has a 0% CFR under 29, and 0.1% under 49), and for older folks, well, they're older, and basically anything can kill them. Some studies showed a fatality rate of 10% for the H1N1 flu -- and so far we're seeing a CFR of 15% for old folks in Korea. It's possible the fatalities we'd been seeing were written off as just that.
  - aidos 7y ago
    > I wouldn't be shocked to see a retrospective on this in the future tell us that we've been seeing the spread of availability of the test rather than the disease. Ok, I could buy into that (and I really hope that's the case - though I'm still doubtful). The main thing I didn't realise was that the tests didn't show who had had it. Thanks for taking the time to work your point through with me.
- dchichkov 7y ago
  "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." — William Gibson
Majromax 7y ago
> If uniformally randomly distributed It's certainly not uniformly distributed. Testing is not random. Typical test guidelines are to test when some combination of the following are present: * Flu-like symptoms, after ruling out all other infectious causes * Travel to a known outbreak region * Close contact with a confirmed or strongly-suspected case Asymptomatic people without known exposure are left untested (as is sensible to economize resources), and even people with mild symptoms but no known exposure may be left untested -- this makes it particularly difficult to catch the early stages of community spread, before people have had time to be hospitalized.