Most liked posts in thread: I dont think this season will finish , Unless ....

I think we'll get the season finished but there will no doubt be issues to overcome and I wouldn't back on finishing on time at all.

I really don't get the people who are trying to downplay the impact of it so far or minimise the disruption going forward.

 

It WAS very high. It started off probably worse than bad flu as measured by excess deaths. It now seems to be running between normal flu and bad flu. Yorkshire has had 7 Covid deaths in the last 14 days from 1463 cases in the same 14 days a month prior. That's a mortality rate of 0.48% - about 3 times worse than normal seasonal flu. Now that is the upper limit which must be adjusted for how many people got infected - probably most without knowing it - and did NOT get tested. We don't know the number not being tested but the UK household infection survey's domestic sampling suggested about 2/3rds of those infected did not get picked up in Pillar 1+2 testing, though that is ongoing and will vary. That suggests a death rate of 0.16% on those Yorkshire figures - about the same as normal seasonal flu - but it's based on an assumption that could be well be off the mark. It could be higher or lower. We do know hospitals are very quiet with Covid cases, despite all the recent outbreaks. Just talk to anyone who works in them.

Flu would spread extremely quickly if probably 90% of the population did not already have immunity to most existing strains from previous exposures. The fact that most second waves of Covid are spreading much, much more slowly is very promising.

 

How do you know? (I'm playing devil's advocate here a little.) It's quite possible most people had immunity before the virus struck and its higher than 90% now. Numerous senior statistical epidemiologists have said that the virus figures accelerated slower than expected and it is behaving as if it is only finding that it can make 20% of the population ill enough to spread the disease (with the rest either not being infected at all or fighting it off asymptomatically and being effectively immune for modelling purposes).

We saw this with reports from the Oxford model in March that 50% might have been infected already - but the government chose to run with the Imperial model, which has since received a great deal of criticism. The Oxford model could still be correct. The virus does not seem as deadly as initially thought so 1000 deaths per day in early April could be from at least 100,000 infections per day in early March or late February at 1% mortality. It could even have peaked as high as 500k per day if mortality was as low as, say, 0.2% and the Oxford model would be right. We don't know because we weren't testing and we can't check properly. If antibodies fade significantly after a few weeks as is normal, many infected then might well test negative now. This would explain why blood donor antibody tests nationally have shown another fall to show 5.5% positivity from 8.3% 11 weeks ago. It might have been even higher in March. If you think 10%+ in March would still be too low to make a big difference, bear mind that scientific papers have suggested 2/3rds of adults might fight it off with T-cells only and most kids don't seem to generate antibodies either. That could be 75% of the population that effectively don't get the disease enough to notice and spread it. 10%+ back in March might then mean that those statistical epidemiologists and the Oxford model were right.

As I said, I'm not saying I believe this but it IS undoubtedly a possibility. It IS possible that we had 75% effectively immune and it is now up to 85% or 90% and the pool left to infect is only 10% or 15%. This could mean that Covid was a slightly worse than flu severity disease but it had a pool to attack that was twice as big as flu. Twice the pool could mean faster spread. Twice the pool and slightly higher severity might mean that ultimately it would kill 2.5 or 3 times as many as flu (mostly early but it might take years to complete). Once half that 25% pool had been infected, and so only 12.5% was left, it would behave pretty much like a slightly worse than average flu in future, once we unlock. It's possible that's where we are - maybe.

The 75% effective immunity might explain the differing racial susceptibility, too. There might be fewer immigrants in that 75%. It affects older people worse. Maybe people who have lived in the UK long enough will have fought off a similar virus in their youth which their immune system recognises as near enough the same, while immigrants from the Caribbean, Africa, and the Indian subcontinent might not have met that old UK virus in the same numbers, so fewer immigrants were in the 75% protected pool and more were in the 25% vulnerable pool. Some UK residents from 50 years ago would still end up in the 25% that get sick but generate effective antibodies more quickly, once infected, than those not exposed. Even if going into hospital in similar numbers, those with no immune memory of a similar old UK virus could be slower to fight it off and so end up in ICUs more.

There are numerous possibilities of which this is only one that could explain what has happened and is still happening. There are others. It fits some models. Will we ever know who/which models are right or wrong? I don't know. I'm sure it's possible we never will find out - but it IS possible that 90% of people in the UK are now effectively immune IF we started at 75% or similar and half of those susceptible have had it..

 

Now this bit I really would like to see!

I really enjoy your thoughts and knowledge on this but when it comes to drawing conclusions it can seem to conflict a little bit.

 

It's out there for debate. I'm sceptical by nature and I question lots of things. It do not claim to be right and I'm not really concluding now. I am probably more open-minded than I appear but I sometimes question what is generally accepted and people often find it "negative". I'll often offer alternative possiblities based on a great deal of reading for informatoin and debate. Sometimes people extol a theory and then start taking it almost as a fact or given when it's based on assumptions that could be questioned. I think mainstream media are doing that too much (not just Covid) . There's lots we don't know yet. I just question when I see theories passed as facts and put out alternative possibilities to see what (constructive) criticism and alternative information sources come in. That seems to be what Dennis is offering and I welcome it. I'm not here to argue or claim I'm right. I never said I was not repeating a hypothesis as part of an alternative possibility, I am. It could be right or it could easily be wrong. I'm curious if Dennis thinks there is no evidence to support the hypothesis of T-cell immunity. I'd like to see why the fairly limited/small sample evidence offered in the papers is not considered enough by his sources. I look forward to seeing his input and hope I can understand it. Although I'm not bad with statistical papers, some medical jargon gets hard to follow.

There's a bit about the T-cell immunity discussion here for anyone wanting to know what we're talking about.

https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/201833/cell-immunity-what-does-help-protect/

 

The T cell bit isnt about true immunity though is it? You still get the virus, you can still pass it on, you just fight it off easier as far as I saw. It was more a possible explanation of being asymptomatic rather than immune.

Being sceptical is one thing but there does seem to be a trend for very logical studies and then making a leap to what they could actually mean.

 

Theres a lot in there and obviously cant answer it all but where do you live that hasn't had a single case?

Don't get me wrong. It has to be kept in context but that logical context, not just manipulating figures to decrease the death rate or overplay the amount of immunity.

If as a country we decide, with our eyes open, that we would be happier to have nightclubs, travel and sports crowds back but the trade off is, say, 1m deaths a year rather than 600k then that's one thing. But making out like its is being overblown and is of minimal impact to make it look like there is no trade off to increased freedom is quite another. That's what I mean by downplaying it.

 

He openly stated in one of his replies he did not believe in facts.

 

that might have been a lie though

 

So was it fact there won't be games shown at 3pm because sky said?

 

We won’t get a vaccine for years. And if we do there is no way we will be first in line for it or footballers. It will be the vulnerable first and then the rest. I’d imagine then key workers. How long would it take to get through the population? Who administers the injections? It’s not gonna happen any time soon.

We live with it. We test and we find it and isolate the players if that’s what’s needed. But I think eventually we won’t be required to test everyone all the time. It will be surely people with symptoms go get a test?

 

If they are putting that on all their contracts I can not see anyone signing for them

 

For the premier league the problem is going to be getting the season started. Because they played out last season they let their players go on holidays and now they are finding that several players are going to be unavailable due having tested positive for the virus.

 

I don't think we should be judging the mortality within such small time periods to be honest. Unless the virus has changed it's still as deadly in the last 14 days as it was in March. I am very interested if anything indicates it has, it's my main bit of hope for normality at the moment.

You're right though that with all the restrictions in place and with people who are most vulnerable taking pretty extreme precautions (while people who feel less vulnerable take more risks) that the rate is now very similar to normal flu. If anything that shows how bad it would have been without all those actions.

Regardless of the death rate this season is going to be a mess. Outbreaks within the squads are going to cause fixture chaos or really unbalanced games. With the Premier Leagues squad sizes that's one issue but with the limited league 2 squads losing 5 or 6 players to isolation will be quite a barrier.

 

Man United have another player besides Pogba who went to a country that means he now has to quarantine. Arsenal have 2 players missing for tomorrows match. The England squad expects to lose up to 3 players due to players testing positive. So it is a little bit more widespread that just Man Utd