Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Zanza]

I wonder if these early antibody tests that suggest 10-20% of the population in e.g. London or New York was already exposed to the virus will actually hold up to scrutiny. The huge discrepancy to some other studies, e.g. in Iceland or Spain makes me sceptical. 

[Tamas]

I wonder if these early antibody tests that suggest 10-20% of the population in e.g. London or New York was already exposed to the virus will actually hold up to scrutiny. The huge discrepancy to some other studies, e.g. in Iceland or Spain makes me sceptical.

Yeah it seems like the closer this is examined the less true it becomes. It's a bit depressing.

[Sheilbh]

Maybe - it doesn't feel like a huge discrepancy 10-20% is in line with the worst hit Spanish areas (London and New York are higher), I think the worst hit Spanish region was 15%; and English regions average was 5% which is the same for Spain. Not sure about the non NYC bits of New York. The overall figures of likely infected seems similar, so about 4 million in England and about 2.5 million in Spain.

But I think we've only had these as initial headline figures and the actual surveys haven't been published yet, unlike Spain. I think the Spanish are far further along on this.

The discrepancy with Iceland seems like a country that got it under control v ones that didn't. The big, weird outlier is Sweden which last I saw had only 7% with antibodies in Stockholm and far lower out of Stockholm.

[DGuller]

I think one hard number that has been estimated in dozens of different ways is the approximately 1% infection fatality rate (or the doubling of annual mortality rate on infection, which would be a more useful number for detailed calculations).  I think it's unlikely that there are going to be legitimate antibody tests that would point to the number of infected to be much different from 100 times the number of dead.

[Josquius]

Meanwhile, in Berlin ...

International waters. Rules don't apply?

[Iormlund]

I think one hard number that has been estimated in dozens of different ways is the approximately 1% infection fatality rate (or the doubling of annual mortality rate on infection, which would be a more useful number for detailed calculations).  I think it's unlikely that there are going to be legitimate antibody tests that would point to the number of infected to be much different from 100 times the number of dead.

I'd say you are correct here.

Though with the caveat that complete heath system collapse would increase this rate. However with what we know now and a bit of good governance and individual behavior we should not reach that point.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Meanwhile, in Berlin ...

International waters. Rules don't apply?

looks like they've been out on the spree 

[Sheilbh]

On scenes in Berlin, I find this interesting:

I'm annoyed at the comparison countries and that this shows days so it's actually only just got back to normal and is still abotu 40-50% normal.

But my point has been people won't change their behaviour and go back to normal - and maybe they will. Initially I thought it would all be to do with how safe they felt - so you can open up as much as you want, if people don't feel safe they won't return. And I still feel like that's true.

But Australia's really odd - they have really flattened the curve and only had about 100 deaths.

As I say I'd love to see other comparison countries to see what other stuff's going on in terms of how people adjust their behaviour.

Edit: One other interesting point on this behaviour point about people's worries rather than policies - all of those collapses start and fall furthest before lockdown.

[Tamas]

Anyone watched Hancock's daily briefing today? I didn't but the Guardian opinion place and commenters below it claim it lacked the usual charts and statistics and whatnot, and the Q&A section revealed track and trace and linked organisation for deciding on local lockdowns is half-ready at best.

People -but it's the Guardian so who knows- were under the distinct impression that the government now just wants this whole thing to be over with.

[Sheilbh]

Didn't watch it but the slide pack is here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/slides-and-datasets-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conference-1-june-2020

They've changed the slides/datasets a few times through this. Generally they've got better and more informative in my view.

[Zanza]

On scenes in Berlin, I find this interesting:

Before Corona, a reservation was optional in virtually all restaurants although necessary in more popular ones. Now, it is mandatory by government decree. That might skew the before/now comparison. 

[Zanza]

Anyone watched Hancock's daily briefing today? I didn't but the Guardian opinion place and commenters below it claim it lacked the usual charts and statistics and whatnot, and the Q&A section revealed track and trace and linked organisation for deciding on local lockdowns is half-ready at best.

People -but it's the Guardian so who knows- were under the distinct impression that the government now just wants this whole thing to be over with.

That worked so well on the last big political topic the UK faced...

[Admiral Yi]

Before Corona, a reservation was optional in virtually all restaurants although necessary in more popular ones. Now, it is mandatory by government decree. That might skew the before/now comparison.

What's the relationship between corona and restaurant reservations?

[merithyn]

Before Corona, a reservation was optional in virtually all restaurants although necessary in more popular ones. Now, it is mandatory by government decree. That might skew the before/now comparison.

What's the relationship between corona and restaurant reservations?

They are only allowed a certain number of customers. This way, they can limit it up front.

[Admiral Yi]

They are only allowed a certain number of customers. This way, they can limit it up front.

That makes sense.