Oxford study: millions may have already built up coronavirus immunity

Approximately 95% of recorded COVID cases are not life threatening. And once all the unrecorded cases of COVID are included in the data, the fatality rate for COVID is likely to be 1% or less.

This mass hysteria needs to end sooner rather than later before even more lives are ruined by unemployment and loss of income.

 

You plan for the worst and hope for the best

 

Not to be a buzz kill, but recovering doesn't always result in immunity, plus this thing is already mutating.

We're probably going to see new vaccines coming along intermittently.

 

So we let 10’s of thousands maybe 6 figures die because most cases are mild. I’m sorry but your not thinking straight!

 

Self destruction shouldn't be part of any plan. Yet that is what too many are doing...

 

The info's that coming out is conflicting as hell. I linked earlier to a WP article that said that there were few differences in the strains, and that a vaccine could universally work on existing strains(IE: If things don't worsen from now and a year from now.)

 

Yeah I've noticed that too. It'd be incredibly great news to find that one vaccine could indeed do the trick.

 

Oxford study: millions may have already built up coronavirus immunity

I stated this in another thread. The new phrase of the day will be herd immunity.

 

That isn't new information and isn't the significant distinction in these research results. They're talking about how far along in the expected pandemic process the UK currently is.

There should be (and largely hasn't been here) any "mass hysteria". The extensive restrictions which have been implemented in the UK, with the consequential personal and national economic impacts is hysterical, it was carefully considered in the context of the evidence available at the time the decisions needed to be made. Anyway, even head of this new study isn't saying that shouldn't have been done, she is more interested in supporting the decisions over what needs to be done next.

 

There was little to no evidence supporting the "worst" case scenario being peddled by fear-mongers. It was just another hysterical overreaction from power-hungry governments and bed-wetting statists.

 

Thousands of people die every day for all sorts of reasons. What's so special about these deaths that the global economy needs to be majorly disrupted on an indefinite basis?

 

Of course it's new information. The study was just released. And now they're collecting further data to test the hypothesis. And if they're proven right, it will mean all the hysterical estimates of mortality and morbidity being peddled by media and governments and bed-wetters were a bunch of disingenuous nonsense.

 

I suppose the real casualty here will be socialized medicine. Clearly. when confronted. it folded, and lots of folks died in places like China, Italy, Spain. The results aren't in yet for other nations in the EU, or the UK, but the strain those nations have already publicly warned of are out there to read. It will be awfully hard for democrats to sell socialized medicine anytime soon given the obvious examples provided by these nations in their crisis hours where death boards, critically repurposed care can so easily be demonstrated. What will democrats do now? Now that folks are witnessing the abject failure absent draconian economic crushing policy the failure of these systems to adequately care for and treat their citizens, they cannot hide from it.

If the herd becomes immune, their collective caterwauling should be run, on endless loop for the chicken little histrionics it was.

 

I meant the predicted overall fatality rate specifically isn't new information and wasn't the focus of the new study anyway. The "hysteria" about that was generated by the ignorant and misinformed and was largely limited to the bottom end of the internet which doesn't really matter in the real world.

Again, this study was largely focused on establishing how far long the predicted pandemic path the UK is actually in, information required to properly inform the policy decisions on what we do next.

 

The proper course of action would have been to promote selective isolation and social distancing among high risk populations, not a totalitarian imposition of general isolation on the entire population. This was a massive overreaction that established an extremely dangerous precedent going forward. Now governments realize they have the ability to impose the most draconian restrictions on freedom of movement, association, and commerce even when the risk to society is relatively low. And that doesn't even address the costs associated with loss of employment and income, which is also associated with increased mortality and morbidity among those effected.

 

It's not the deaths that are the problem. Dead people are easy to deal with.

It's the living and sick that need medical attention. Too many and your systems will overwhelm. There are already reports of shortages of necessary medical supplies. People who got sick and needed medical treatment independent of Covid didn't stop getting sick and needing medical treatment.

 

You mean just like the common flu?

 

So millions of people have an immunity? That's great! That means less than 1/8 of the world's population has immunity to this disease!

 

The point of having a worst case scenario is because you have a range of potential outcomes based on a host of assumptions about future conduct. Of course there is little evidence to support the worst case scenario - that's because it is, by definition, the most extreme outliers for the models.

 

Yes!!

 

This is a novel virus for which there is almost zero data. So if you want to talk over vs under-reaction, I prefer an over-reaction that limits the number of dead to tens of thousands and trillions in economic damage as compared to an under-reaction that kills millions and also causes trillions in economic damage.

 

Most of the shortages are being caused by government regulations that restrict the free flow of goods and services and information.

Much of the governmental response to this overblown crisis has been to relax those restrictions so that private industry could meet the increased demand for medical goods and services.

Clearly, those regulations never should have existed in the first place. Clearly, the market is the best way for society to allocate scarce resources.

 

Millions of people in the UK and the US. They estimate that 50% of the British population already has immunity. The US won't be far behind. As for the rest of the world, that's not really my problem or my business. I live in America.

 

You mean the world economy you live in isn't your problem? Yeah and the 2008 recession was just a U.S. recession. I'm not an epidemiologist. I might be missing some finer details, but the model relies on the idea that only certain populations will get this disease because of weaker immune systems. The disease spread and people became immune as asymptomatic cases lead to herd immunity. The problem is that it looks at hospitalization rates. It looks at cases where hospitalization is a serious concern. Not everyone who is sick will go to a hospital to be treated. Would you if you had the flu? Even if most cases just need a day home, that's still people who are being infected. When we look at the higher mortality rate, then the numbers killed will thankfully go down, but it's still a lot of people who are going to die from this.

 

I'm sorry, but can you point me to the regulations that say medical devices can only be manufactured to certain amounts? I missed that one.