I know we are tired of Covid19 posts but this is worth a separate one....

Note this is NOT False news....

One of the towns that was placed in the Red zone in Northern taly at the start of the Italian Coronavirus epidemic (now Pandemic) carried out a unique experiment. In addition to a total lockdown like that now extended to the whole of Italy, they tested every single inhabitant for the virus and isolated anyone testing positive. They have now reported that they are completely clear of infections. However, that is not the important bit of news which is.. The reports come from the Italian medical fraternity notably a professor of virology

Since they had a record of all those tested positive from the entire population and a record of those that showed symptoms died recovered etc. i.e. a complete set of data for different outcomes, They have determined of all those affected only one in ten showed any symptoms and are now clear of the virus. if that is the case. it is likely that these figures of 2.5% etc deaths an higher for older people are out by a possible factor of 10 making it considerably less lethal than many currently believe. That is not to say we should not still be concerned but it is encouraging and any good news is welcome.

 

Have they factored in the Mediterranean diet ?

 

I also read this and it is encouraging. The issues I read with this is if we were to apply it to the whole nation, cost would be problematic (16 euros per test) and also that those who test negative today could test positive tomorrow so it could be futile. I was largely encouraged by it though and thank you for sharing, we need some positivity and facts, which this thread is an example of.

 

Is that the town of Vo?
The sobering thing i took from it was that of the 90 who tested positive 6 were asymptomatic, ie they showed no signs of any illness whatsoever which illustrates the idiocy of the "i feel alright so i'm going to carry on going out and about as normal" argument .

 

That’s a misunderstanding of statistics though.
Any numerical answer is specific to the question. So they have found that if you test ‘everyone’ most people are asymptomatic, and that death or serious illness is much rarer. Great!!

whilst that’s interesting - it’s not useful for comparing to the death rate if you’re only counting positive tests of people who are ill (as we are).

all that they’ve ascertained is that many more people have it than we previously thought.

 

It might not be useful for comparing the death rate but it sounds pretty positive to me. Only one in ten of those infected showed symptoms, ie. suffered in any way, and of those the death rate was nearer 0.3%? I'll take that as a positive all day long.

 

While it is positive in the one sense it also explains why the virus is spreading so easily as people have no idea they are ill.
And again it means the overall death rate is likely a lot lower its still high enough in those that show symptoms to overwhelm health care.

 

Yes but he's right in that the figure I keep hearing is that 80% will get it and 1% of those will die meaning 500,000 deaths.

If the figures tekkytyke posted prove to be correct then this simply cannot be true. 80% can't get it with symptoms AND those be just 10% of who gets it.
The 500,000 was based on 1% of everyone who contracted it dying not 1% of those with symptoms. If 1% of those with symptoms die and those with symptoms only equate to 10% of those who contract it which in turn is 80% of the population then the death rate is actually only 1% of 10% of 80% of the UK population. (60-66m I think) which is 'just' 50,000 people which is a huge difference to the 500,000 we keep hearing. And that's if they can't a) reduce the number of people who contract it and b) treat those who do.

It's definitely good news if true

 

How do you work that out.

if China only test those with symptoms, and 1% of those die then that answers the question ‘of those with symptoms tested, how many will die?’

if we’re not testing everyone, then the number of asymptomatic cases who die is irrelevant, it doesn’t reduce the death rate because it’s a different question.

any data is only an answer to the specific question asked.

Ask Tory voters if they believe BoJo is doing a great job and the answer is 80% say Yes.

You can’t then conclude that 80% of the population think he’s doing a great job.

Different question - different answer.

The important takeaway from this IMHO as @churtonred posted is that there’s loads of infected people wandering around spreading it cos they feel fine.

 

So if 1% of those tested die and only 10% of those with it get symptoms then doesn't that mean that if 80% of the UK population get it then 5m will by symptomatic and of those 5m 50,000 die? What am I doing wrong? It can't be 500,000 unless our population is hundreds and hundreds of millions right?

 

But the 80% who will get it is only a wet finger, I wouldn’t use it in any modelling at all.

But if you were to use that figure; be aware it’s a wet finger based on transmission rates from places where only ill people have been tested. Again apples with apples.

 

Yes it's only a wet finger but the figure can't be more than 100% so if every single person in the UK gets it. Roughly 66m and 10% get symptoms that's 6.6m. now if 1% of those die that is 66,000 which as I said is brilliant news as it is massively lower than the half a million deaths we were expecting.

The exact figures weren't the important bit it was that in vo the death rate was shown to be 1% of symptomatic people and symptomatic people only represented 10% of those who had contracted the virus.

 

Exactly.

 

But the figures are skewed by the fact they had 100% testing.
We know that the more testing that’s done, the lower the transmission rate. See S Korea, Japan etc.

but people dismiss the idea of mass testing because ‘it’s only any use for the day tested’. Etc

 

People were using the wet finger 80% to calculate that 500,000 might die.

 

With respect you are missing the point. Supertyke has understood. Testing everyone enabled them to ascertain the total number who contracted the virus i.e. there were no unreported people infected to skew the figures. Of ALL the people who contracted it only 1 in 10 showed symptoms and only those are the ones in the big wide world, by and large that are being tested. Also those are the ones that are the death rate is calculated from. How many go undetencted is not the point, it is the fact that even if everyone gets it, if the result are reflected worldwide only 10% then show symptoms and so the 3.4% death rate becomes 0.34 .
Unless winter flu deaths are calculated in the same way i.e. assuming many people get flu without showing symptoms (Not sure how likely that is!!) then the irony is it could be that flu is actually more dangerous to elderly / vulnerable than this new virus (not withstanding a vaccine exists for flu. That is a bit of a stretch I know.

 

But it’s 0.34% of EVERYONE only IF everyone is tested.

so IF everyone ISN’T tested, millions of untested infected people are abroad infecting others.

Again, we know already that universal testing reduces the death rate, so these results support an argument for greater testing.

I spend my entire working life making sure that numbers match specific questions, and the conclusions drawn here are based on an answer to a different question.

these stats are interesting in many ways - but if your biggest takeaway is anything other than ‘testing saves lives’ then you’ve misunderstood the scenario.

BTW I’m not saying that X number of deaths will happen, because that number depends mostly on how well we control the spread, and that’s why I believe we were slow to act. But when we only had deaths in single figures, and I advocated keeping people apart, most people thought I was overreacting.

indeed, there are still idiots (probably with payday loans) who don’t understand exponential growth who keep banging on about the high number of flu deaths.

 

Nope. Still don't get your point. Where did I takeaway that testing save lives.? I agree that this report highlights that many people are out there unknowingly infecting others

The whole point is that in this small sample everyone was tested so they discovered who had the virus and who did not. They were therefore able to determine for the first time how many carriers are asymptomatic and those with symptoms.

All this indicates...
a) Without universal testing (which is not practical), isolation and total lockdown as adopted in Italy not just for people showing symptoms but everyone is the only answer to slow/stop the spread.
b) The argument that if 80% become infected will result in 2.5% fatalities in total is erronious since clearly there are 9 out of 10 unaffected by the virus and therefore will not now or in the future swamp the health services.
c) Up to now the number of asymptomatic carriers was a complete unknown or total guesswork. The testing program in no way affects whether people are asymptomatic or develop symptoms as testing is NOT treatment. So 80% /10 reduces the fatalities from 2.5% of 80% to 2.5% of 8%. This should enable more accurate forecasting of how many people will require hospitalisation and expected fatalities. The latter should be a much lower number than the 500k in the worst case scenario numbers being bandied about.

EDIT: Just noticed you state we already know universal testing save lives.. How? It is isolating people that saves lives. Testing does not treat especially as we now know so many do not show any symptoms and we cannot test everyone. The best way is to isolate everyone that can be isolated and target not people showing symptoms but front line medics and all essential workers .

 

Covid-19 isn't a thing. The destruction of our society is.

 

NO
The whole point is that if you test an entire population you can control the spread.

THAT is the takeaway, and if you’re failing to grasp that, you’ve failed to see the salient point.

Once more... South Korea