-
Its bugging me that these "respectable" institutions are falling over themselves to publish research in its infancy, and the news media is then running with it. Seems to me that a load of academics are seeing the chance to make a name for themselves, and grasping at it.
Imperial say "If left unfettered then 250,000 people could die"
Oxford say "It has been left unfettered and 50%+ have already had it"
If they were both anywhere near correct then, by now, we would have over 125,000 people either dead, or about to die. (Actually more, since the 250K equates to how many will have died once herd immunity kicks in, not 100% of the population getting it). That hasn't happened, so either one or both of these bits of research are spectacularly wrong.
But I bring it up because it means even the experts are not willing to make a claim with regard to how long it has been here.
No, but I bet they are praying that Oxford are correct, that's one of the main reasons that they are touting the antibody test as a game changer. and one where they are 100% right to not start shipping the test until they are 100% sure its accurate.
It should also be noted that they seem to be behaving as if Imperial is correct, which is erring on the side of caution. It also seems that they might have managed to ramp up capacity to somewhere near giving the NHS a chance to cope.
Sifta-
so either one or both of these bits of research are spectacularly wrong.
They're not mutually exclusive, both could still be correct. Neither necessarily contradicts the other.
For example, the 50% of the population that are suggested to be infected could be very heavily skewed towards the under 70s which would explain the current low number of deaths.
(Also, the death rate in the UK is doubling every 3 days. Since there were 57 deaths today then if that rate continues there will be ~1450 deaths in 14 days time, which would be from the currently infected group, and some ~6750 more will die between now and then. This is still a long way off 125,000 though.)
-
If they were both anywhere near correct then, by now, we would have over 125,000 people either dead, or about to die.
That’s not how modelling works.
-
Bit cynical I think. In my experience with bleeding edge modelling research, people just take a shotgun approach and put out as much as they can as quickly as possible with the aim of getting a head start on interpretation of future results. Obviously it's good for your career if you're the one who has the bright idea first but I would hope in public health that's secondary.
e.g. if those antibody tests start coming back 50% positive then now that the Oxford study is out we have an inkling of what it means. End result is we're less likely to end up looking at results we don't understand and (in theory) no harm done if they've got it wrong
Greenbank
miro_o
frankenbike
The arrival date is part of the paper that came out of the Oxford research group yesterday. Using the death rates they work backwards to claim that there were uncounted cases before to account for the actual relationship between fist identified cases and deaths. This report was just brought up during the daily briefing and it was not dismissed, but instead got the "We just don't know - and this is why testing is so important!" answer. Which is entirely fair. But I bring it up because it means even the experts are not willing to make a claim with regard to how long it has been here.