Half of United Kingdom Already Infected With Coronavirus, Says Oxford Model

Great news if true, but only massive population testing can tell us if that's really so.


Lots of media reports are citing the results of an epidemiological model developed by researchers at Oxford University that suggests that half the population of the United Kingdom may already have been infected by the novel coronavirus that causes COVID-19. If this is true, that would be great news! Why? Because it would mean that the coronavirus is vastly less lethal than many researchers fear that it is and that lockdowns can be lifted soon. But let's take a look at what the model is actually saying before you rush out into the streets to hug strangers in celebration of the impending end of quarantine.

There are two big assumptions in the model that basically determine its projections of the percentage of the population who will eventually die of the infection. The first is the basic reproduction number (R0), that is, the average number of people to which an infected person will pass along the disease. The other crucial assumption is that the fraction of the population who are vulnerable to severe disease and death is small.

The researchers explain, "Our overall approach rests on the assumption that only a very small proportion of the population is at risk of hospitalisable illness." How small? In one scenario, only 1 in 1,000. In two others, 1 in 100 are susceptible to severe disease.

The researchers run three scenarios based on the assumption that the first reported death occurred one month after the infection began spreading unnoticed throughout the U.K. They fit their model to the data on deaths from the disease reported after the first 15 days following the first recorded death. They argue that this is a way to avoid any potential effects of control strategies in slowing death rates.

Combining an assumed susceptibility to severe disease rate of 1 in 100 with R0s 2.25 and 2.75, the researchers project respectively that 36 and 40 percent of the U.K.'s population was already infected by March 19. If the susceptibility risk is only 1 in 1,000, then 68 percent of Britons must have been infected by March 19. If these infection rates are true, then the U.K. is approaching herd immunity, making the spread of this disease from person to person less and less likely, thus providing protection for even the more vulnerable segments of the population.

The researchers do acknowledge that "these results underscore the dependence of the inferred epidemic curve on the assumed fraction of the population vulnerable to severe disease." Well, yes.

This is basically a circular argument: If the disease is not particularly severe then that means a larger percentage of the population must have already have been infected to yield the observed number of deaths. On the other hand, if the disease risk is severe then the observed deaths suggest that very few people must currently be infected.

Of course, all models, including those projecting epidemiological doom, are only as good as their assumptions and data that drive them.

The researchers suggest that the way to test their model is to begin an immediate campaign of population screening using serology tests for coronavirus antibodies. If a significant proportion of people tested positive for exposure to the virus, that would confirm their model's projections. This would mean that the disease is relatively mild for the vast majority of people and substantial herd immunity has already been established. If few people test positive, then that would mean the worst of the epidemic still lies ahead.

As it stands, the public, policy makers and public health officials don't have the data that can tell them which course of the epidemic is more likely—the Imperial College model's dire coronavirus projection or the Oxford model's rosier one? The Oxford researchers are right that massive testing would resolve this vital issue, so let's get started sooner rather than later.

NEXT: The Feds Are Suspending Some Tariff Payments. They Should Suspend All of Them.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Random sampling, not massive testing.

    1. First comment on the board, and nailed it.

      Beat me to it.

    2. I’m still not entirely clear on why the mass of the test is even relevant.

      Assuage peoples’ fears by having commercials of Wayne Brady or Steve Harvey or whomever showing up at people’s houses with giant novelty test results?

    3. Yes. Widespread random testing! I’ve been saying this for two weeks but we’re not any closer to finding the answer, so I must be smarter than everybody in government.

      1. This is actually politically difficult to do. Selection biases can wreck the study if people are allowed to opt out (because people who aren’t worried about having COVID are less inclined to waste their time getting tested for it). Consequently, in practical terms, you’re talking about sending cops and med techs to some randomly selected addresses and forcibly collecting blood from whomever lives there. This is a somewhat fraught proposition.

        So, y’know, public health officials aren’t all entirely stupid, it’s just that the requirements of useful statistics don’t always align with civil liberties.

        1. Certainly there would be plenty of willing participants.

  2. “Our overall approach rests on the assumption that only a very small proportion of the population is at risk of hospitalisable illness.”

    And beds will be available for them within 6 months. God bless the National Health!

  3. I mean it would make sense to try to use data to guide our decisions, if you want to be lame.

    1. The position seems to have changed over a period of a few days.

      At first, only universal testing would suffice.

      Then it was necessary for as many people to be tested as possible to bring an end to the economic grief.

      Now, we’re looking at something a random sample could accomplish.

      It took a while to get to the one that “made sense”.

      1. KS:
        At first, bureaucracy stymies roll out of diagnostic testing early in epidemic that would have enabled identification of infected followed by tracking their contacts to recommend that they quarantine themselves. Missed opportunity to slow and contain epidemic.

        Then, testing everybody to get a better handle on the actual severity of the epidemic by obtaining better estimates the case-fatality rate. Still need to do this. And yes, random testing works here too.

        Third, massive testing in order to identify those folks who can safely return to normal life (and jumpstart economic life) and keep periodically testing currently uninfected to enable them to self-isolate and recommend quarantine to their contacts as way to keep flattening the epidemic’s curve thus not overwhelming health care system.

        They all “make sense” in their proper context.

        1. I appreciate that they all made sense within the context of your concerns at the time.

          I hope you appreciate that this is the first time testing asymptomatic people has made sense within the context of my concern for willing participation.

          If we can show that an enormous amount of us have already been infected through the random testing of willing participants, that would be great.

        2. Ron – This massive testing does not make sense at all at this point. Get off of it.

          What needs testing – universal – is for everyone coming into hospital and who works anywhere near patients. THAT is what needs to happen so that the spread can actually be prevented where it most certainly exists and needs to be treated. Next would be the obvious point of customer contact in those places that are open. That is NOT a small deal at all. Every five days THAT problem fails to be solved means the problem doubles.

          Any sort of general testing is merely to estimate an RO at this point. And the working hypotheses of those who advocate it is completely freaking ludicrous. Half the population already infected? They think this RO is 10 or 15 or 30 or something? Stop wasting time advocating this sort of shit. The window that we lost by not testing in Feb is gone – closed – no more – it is a late parrot.

          Testing now has GOT to focus on better fighting what we KNOW we have coming. NOW. TODAY. Not on wasting time wondering about silly shit that serves only some BS politics in a country that is without a doubt at this point the most incompetent country dealing with this problem. NOW.

          This is statistics for the purpose of feeling good about ourselves. And the next step – if that little experiment doesn’t work to make up feel better – is ALWAYS a second experiment and then a third – all down a rabbit hole of deceit

          1. honestly – advocating universal testing at this point is nothing but utter corruption.

            1. PANIC! PANIC! FEAR AND PANIC!
              Face your mortality like a man.

        3. But first they need a serologic test. That is, a test for antibody. What they have now is PCR, a test for virus RNA, which only shows whether the person has circulating virus at the moment. So they can tell whether you’re colonized (or infected, if symptomatic) now, but not whether you have immunity from past exposure.

          1. That’s exactly what this is.

      2. Ken, if testing rolled out immediately when international passengers were coming in January and February the lawsuits would have been flying because THAT’S RACIST.

        Remember all those Lefty arguments to prevent Trump from controlling the few sick passengers that entered the USA back then?

        Additionally as we now find out, this virus is not nearly as deadly or as contagious as the liars in the media’s Narrative. Early testing would have gave us a clearer picture like we have now.

        This retard two week shutdown would likely have preventable since anyone sick would go home just like with the Flu/Cold season. Rotating out sick people to keep companies going.

        1. It is extraordinary that the progressives who denounced Trump for the travel ban in the the early stages of the coronavirus are the same ones leading the charge on lock-downs in California and New York. Using the coercive power of government to stop Americans from traveling from New York City to Boston seems to be more important to them than preventing people from northern Italy and Spain from coming to New York City, that’s for sure. It just goes to show that they had no idea how bad this would get, and any badmouthing we see from progressives of the the president for not being prescient on what would happen with the coronavirus should be seen in that light.

        2. Umm, lc1789
          Remember, the President issued his 15-day lockdown on …. MARCH SIXTEENTH … only ten freaking days ago … well over a month too late. Do the math.

          Each covid carrier infects 2 more.
          2 becomes 4 … 4 becomes 8 … 8 becomes 16 … etc …

          Safe to say the President’s inaction allowed at least 2/3 of all current infections AND DEATHS … while he was saying … “it’s a Democrat hoax” .. “will just go away magically” … and dozens of other sneers and ridicule.

          But, NOW he says says he always knew it is a pandemic.
          Just as he knows spinning turbines cause cancer,

          This retard two week shutdown would likely have preventable since anyone sick would go home just like with the Flu/Cold season. Rotating out sick people to keep companies going


          If infected, it takes up to 14 days for ANYONE to know it. No symptoms. After THAT, many still have no symptoms, or very mild.
          We’ve known this for over two months, most of us on the planet.

    2. Government only seems interested in gathering the scariest data right now. Only gathering the scariest data obviously extended the duration of the panic.

  4. “The researchers suggest that the way to test their model is to begin an immediate campaign of population screening using serology tests for coronavirus antibodies. If a significant proportion of people tested positive for exposure to the virus, that would confirm their model’s projections.”

    Voluntary testing with a random sample and a control group will suffice.

    1. KS: Yes, you’re right. But it’s not either/or. Massive testing would also provide the information, plus have the benefit of letting individual citizens know their status and whether or not it is safe for them to return to normal life.

      1. Those who wish to return to work because they care more about their paychecks than they do about the risk of infection should be free to do so regardless of the results of any test, and those people are presumably disproportionately those who want to be tested.

        I don’t support testing people who don’t want to be tested, regardless of how much damage they’re doing to the economy by isolating themselves, any more than I support making it illegal to reopen your business–regardless of whether that might lead to more people becoming infected. And it’s really hard to talk about whether we support “massive” testing unless we make it explicit that we’re not talking about mandatory testing and we’re not talking about testing people as a precondition for going back to work or shopping.

        1. Because, DAMMIT, workers have a GOD-GIVEN RIGHT to infect AND KILL others.

          At what level does Worker A realize that Worker B, standing right next to her, COULD infect and kill her?

          How long for Worker B to do likewise?

      2. What status Ron? the only status for the non-symptomatic that could possibly be worth a damn is an antibody test. and it ain’t around yet.

        1. So, we should allow the non-symptomatic to infect and/or kill others?

    2. Voluntary testing is subject to selection bias. Do the people who volunteer to get tested have lower susceptibility? Or greater? No way to know but it’s almost certainly not the same as the larger population. Using a control group could compensate for the self-selection bias but only at the expense of time watching the control. Truly random testing is better and faster.

      1. If a random test shows that 68% of willing participants have already been infected, the extent of whatever amount of bias is probably limited. You only need 50% or so to achieve herd immunity, and the elderly and people with conditions that make them more susceptible to dying from the infection can continue to isolate themselves.

        It’s important to keep the big picture in view. The vaccines they’re testing won’t clear testing until August, or so, and it will takes months after that before we have enough to vaccinate half the country. The economy can’t withstand five months of lock down, and that means the American people will start ignoring orders sooner or later out of necessity.

        Even if you decide to go mandatory so you can get firmer, better, more detailed and accurate numbers, you can find out if this 68% number is anywhere near accurate first. If you only get 2% positive from a random sample of willing participants, the chances of getting 68% from the general population with mandatory testing is highly unlikely.

        1. Not only that, but by August (or later, if they actually start using it prematurely) we may find out it’s unsafe. Even if it’s safe, it may turn out to be ineffective or only a little bit effective.

        2. So … we should allow enough people to die, that over 300 million of us develop herd immunity?

      2. “Voluntary testing is subject to selection bias.”

        It is subject to selection bias, sure. But that is easily controlled for. This is not rocket science- it is a problem confronted with pretty much ANY random sampling of people that isn’t mandatory (which describes pretty much every survey or poll in the united states).

    3. Yes, and from reading your comments I think you might have been thinking assuming the testing I wanted would be mandatory. That is 100% not the case.

  5. Statistically we only need a small population tested. Say, 3000 would give almost a 100% result, right? How about using one of the cruise ship results…contained environment, known # tested positive, known number requiring hospitalization, known # dead.
    Why isn’t cruise ship test somewhat definitive where virtually everyone would be exposed to someone exposed?

    1. re: 3000

      Unlikely. 3000 is a good rule of thumb for patterns of behavior or opinion that follow a normal distribution – a bell curve. From the data available so far, it looks like the susceptibility you’d be testing for is skewed strongly to one side – a curve more like a Poisson distribution. To achieve the usual 95% confidence interval, you need a larger sample when the behavior follows a Poisson distribution. How much larger depends on how strongly skewed the pattern you’re looking for is. I’ll guess that you need at least 30,000 and maybe closer to 100,000 to get truly solid results in this case.

      The sample also needs to be randomly selected. Diamond Princess’s population was older but likely healthier for their ages than the larger population. (If they weren’t healthy, they wouldn’t have been on the cruise.) Diamond Princess provides useful data but not enough to be definitive.

      1. For the purposes of C19 data, Diamond Princess WAS random save for the age issue.

        There is no criteria stated that suggests that cruise passengers would be healthier than the general population. People take vacations all the time when they feel ill–because they paid for it, goddammit.

        Diamond Princess provides an ideal microcosm.

        People don’t want to use it as one because the facts it presents completely undermine the hysteria.

        In a captive population, with 100% exposure, 2999 out of 3711 did not get the illness.

        1. Diamond Princess WAS random save for the age issue.

          The passengers WERE newborns save fo the others.

          There is no criteria stated that suggests that cruise passengers would be healthier than the general population.

          They’re wealthier, which relates to good health,

          In a captive population, with 100% exposure, 2999 out of 3711 did not get the illness.

          The infected knew to stay in their cabin.
          The others knew who to avoid, if any.
          The quarantine allowed 10 infections to become over 700.

          None of this thread has any relevance. To anything.
          Militant nit-picking

  6. I am among those who wonder if the nasty sinus infection (cured by Z-pak) that I had just before this all became the Only Thing Anyone Talks About was coronavirus. We have no confirmed coronavirus cases, let alone deaths, in the rural Pennsylvania county I live in, but the local hospital has supposedly seen “a lot of people with flu-like symptoms” all winter. Hmmm.

    1. It would be very easy for us to think that old, sick people are dying because they are old and sick, and not something new that looks like the flu.

      It’s nearly impossible to believe that the first confirmed corona death in the US was ACTUALLY the first.

    2. If you had a sinus infection, if very likely was NOT covid.

      On the other hand, back in mid january, pretty much everyone in my family had a sickness resulting in a fever. The kids were down for an afternoon. The wife and I were down for 2 – 3 days. It was a wierd achy, tired fever with trouble breathing. Seeing as that we live in orange county, where 40% of the population travels regularly to China, I am pretty confident that we had COVID.

  7. All models are wrong, some are useful. – E.B. box

    These pandemic models are so bad right now. The US is using a model from Act Now that predicts catastrophe, which is why all of the lockdown orders have occurred. I believe this model is probably more realistic due to the 86% asymptomatic rate… but can we please stop pushing policy based on non validated/accredited models.

    1. The lockdowns slow the transmission, infections and death.
      The purpose for that, widely reported, is to minimize the deaths until a vaccine is developed, tested and approved.

      Trump’s lockdown came over a month too late. Infections and deaths increase exponentially, because each infected patient infests 2 more, on average.

      The math says that Trump’s delay allowed roughly 2/3 of total cases and deaths … while he was calling it “a Democrat hoax” that would “just go away, magically” plus sneering and ridicule.

      That my be why he finally listened to his health care professionals, and backed off his reckless and irresponsible “nationwide” re-opening, and even admitted a single, one size fits all plan would be wrong

  8. The researchers here are almost certainly wrong. Even with the cruise ship, where a generally older population was in very tight quarters with lots of interaction on a broad scale, the total infected population was around 20%. I’m guessing the researchers are not epidemiologists or they would know that even the most virulent of diseases affect only around 35% of the population. Admittedly, the relatively long incubation period of COVID-19 makes it an outlier that could be an exception to the rule.

    1. +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    2. The vast majority of people on the cruise ship refused to be tested. So while only a small number are confirmed to have SARs-CoV-2 you can’t assume that the majority who never got tested did not have it.

      1. Wrong. From Nature 3/26/20:

        “Testing almost all of the passengers and crew helped researchers to understand a key blind spot in many infectious-disease outbreaks — how many people are actually infected, including those who have mild symptoms or none at all.”

        I stand by the 20% rate of infection.

    3. the total infected population was around 20%.

      That’s because they tested and knew 10 were infected, They continued testing as that number grew from 10 to over 700, BECAUSE they could not practice social distancing well. We can assume that passengers stayed in their cabins when learning they were infected, or the vast majority of them.

      Here again, Trump’s delays increased human suffering, not as bad as delaying his lockdown for over a month, while he called it a Democrat hoax, and repeatedly ridiculed the gravity of the situation,.

      even the most virulent of diseases affect only around 35% of the population

      This is virulent, 25X more deadly than swine flu. Your own numbers, 20% vs 35%, shows what seems to be the opposite of what you hoped … testing cut the risk by 43%.
      (That low 20% is despite, as you say, an older population in tight quarters.)

      I’m guessing

      Obvious from the start.

  9. The Oxford researchers are right that massive testing would resolve this vital issue, so let’s get started sooner rather than later.

    But if we did that then how would the government be able to justify shutting down the entire economy for weeks or months and then spend trillions of dollars on a bunch of unrelated horseshit?

    1. Yep. Government only seems interested in getting data that prolongs the panic, and they are not idle during the meantime.

    2. But if we did that then how would the government be able to justify shutting down the entire economy for weeks or months and then spend trillions of dollars on a bunch of unrelated horseshit?

      That’s backwards. It’s the lack of testing which allowed a spread to dangerous levels … while Trump shamefully delayed the lockdown for over a month, likely allowing 2/3 of all infections and deaths.

  10. Today’s Reason Cliff Note: “all models…..are only as good as their assumptions and data that drive them.”

  11. As I said the other day, as reported by Reuters, Italy’s official statistician that’s in charge of documenting all these cases is saying the same thing–there’s a 1:10 ratio of “documented” to “actually infected.” Reuters changed their headline to one that was more sensationalistic, but that ratio means Italy’s real mortality rate is less than 1%.

    If the US currently has 61,000 documented cases as of today, that means 610,000 are actually infected as of right now, for a mortality rate of 0.1% (Or, 1% of documented cases). This past flu season had 16,000 people die out of 280,000 hospitalizations, for a mortality rate of 5%, or 0.5% of presumed infected based on the 1:10 ratio.

    Stop the panic-mongering and get people back to work.

    1. Far more meaningful, CDC tracking ignores infections entirely. Compares DEATHS, swine flu with coronavirus, day-by-day, starting with each’s first death. CORVID’s first death was only 25 days ago. I’ve posted the CDC comparison, both diseases, each at 16 days,

      Pure data, no fanciful assumptions, elementary school arithmetic

      (Does compare infections, but totally meaningless for comparing deaths)

  12. As indicated by the displaying, the coronavirus showed up in mid-January at the most recent, and spread undetected for longer than a month prior to the primary cases were affirmed. I will share this blog on my platform

  13. I’m tired of people lying about this.

    The fatality rate of the disease is about 1% in 100% screened populations, like the Diamond Princess cruise ship.

    Thus, for every 1 person who dies, roughly 100 were infected.

    Right now, the UK is sitting at 422 deaths.

    That would suggest about 42,200 cases as of two weeks ago.

    The population of the UK is more than 1,000x greater than this.

    Thus, less than 0.1% of the population was infected as of probably 10ish days ago.

    It’s highly probable less than 1% of the population has been infected at this point.

    1. That assumes that the age distribution of the Diamond Princess is the same as the general population. It is not even close. This is standard biostatistics stuff, adjustment for age distribution. Based on that the rate would in fact be lower.

    2. Actually there is even more wrong with this take. First, it was 1% or so out of all the POSITIVE cases, not 1% in the whole screened population. That of course doesn’t mean you are wrong about the % of the population that has been infected, but your rationale is completely off-base.

    3. It’s 1% in a population of only those with symptoms being screened. US CFR is just over 1%.

    4. Not correct. The entire ship was tested and about 20% were infected.

      1. The infections were massively bloated, from Trump not allowing them to leave a ship of suffering,

  14. Holy shinola. This is totally meaningless. Publishing it a blunder.

    Key data at CDC, pasted below, concludes that coronavirus is 25 time more deadly than the swine flu. The ONLY way to compare two diseases is to track and compare each one’s deaths, day by day. The first CORVID death was Feb 29, so less only 25 total days.

    For the CDC data I cite, the two diseases are compared, day by day, for 16 days, If this sounds confusing there are simple graphics at the source I link.

    COVID deaths = 75
    Swine flu = 3.
    This comparison would be identical if 50% of Americans had been infect, if 100%, or any percentage at all.

    That’s the short version. I’ve included key excerpts here. Check the source, Check ALL sources, if possible,


    “The challenge with COVID-19 is we are all eligible to get sick and spread the disease all at the same time.”

    ELIGIBLE, because none are immune, unlike seasonal flu.

    Last week, Trump said this at a news conference in the Oval Office: “If you go back and look at the swine flu and what happened with the swine flu, you’ll see how many people died and how actually nothing was done for such a long period of time, as people were dying all over the place.

    Still blaming Obama! Like Obama kept blaming Bush. And false (nothing done)

    Data from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention track the increase of H1N1 swine flu in 2009 from the day of the first death – April 28th, 2009 — compared with the rise of COVID-19 since the first U.S. coronavirus death was reported in Washington on Feb. 29.

    … the CDC had confirmed 4,226 COVID-19 cases in 16 days since the first death.
    At the same stage in 2009, the CDC had tallied 3,352 H1N1 cases.

    But, contrary to Trump’s claims, the death rate for COVID-19 has far outpaced H1N1 over the same span.

    The CDC had confirmed 75 COVID-19 deaths, 16 days after its first death.. By contrast, 16 days after the first swine flu death, there were only three H1N1 deaths reported to the CDC.

    75/3 = COVID-19 is 25 times more deadly than swine flu

    The CDC estimates about 12,000 Americans ended up dying from swine flu between April 2009 and April 2010.

    12,000 x 25 = 300,000
    Graphic comparison charts at source

    **”… (swine flu) didn’t go away. Many people don’t realize it’s now part of the seasonal flu and covered by the annual flu vaccine. … COVID-19 is completely new, is hitting on top of the seasonal flu, has no vaccine and clearly warrants the stronger response because nobody is immune.

    ***********”Less than two years ago, the seasonal flu was especially deadly. It killed an estimated 61,000 Americans, …

    That’s WITH a vaccine. CORVID has NO vaccine and is more deadly

    … but it didn’t overwhelm health care workers and hospitals, as COVID-19 did in Italy and threatens to in the U.S. Those people (with seasonal flu) were spread out from November to April or May. Our healthcare system is designed to handle that kind of load. Not so with COVID-19.”

  15. OOPS

    The reason for comparing two diseases is we know how the first one turned out

  16. As Michael Lewis wrote:

    The nation that led the data revolution, that invented the job title of “data scientist,” that has held up better data analysis as the key to smartening up everything from political campaigns to baseball teams is now, at its moment of greatest peril, without data.
    This is a problem.

  17. One puzzling question: why are so many cases being brought in by travelers? Where I live, 85%+ of all reported cases are brought in by travelers.

    I see today that Singapore has 73 new cases, 38 imported. It seems the percentage of infected people arriving by plane is much, much higher than the alleged percentage of infected people in the countries they are arriving from.

    1. Because those are the people that are getting tested.

    2. The countries that do that are the countries that trace contacts and test those contacts. So they can usually track down the infected early and isolate them so they don’t infect others. After they’ve done that – the risk is from the outside not from community spread.

      Singapore is definitely a country that traces contacts. They have even put general info about those traced locations (eg this conference or that hotel) online so that people can see that and go in for testing themselves to see if they are infected.

      Outside Wuhan (where the disease started and spread among working class) or China, the disease has mostly spread from country to country among the frequent flier set and they tend to have similar social groups to spread it.

  18. Tom Luongo wonders what the American people’s reaction will be if the coronavirus response destroys the economy, and millions of jobs, but the virus turns out to be a dud?

    1. He’s kinda wacky on all 3.
      1) No dud, already 25X more deadly than the swine flu
      2) No destroyed economy
      3) No millions of jobs lost

      What will the American people’s reaction be to a REAL threat. We’re on track to see 4,000 deaths in a single day, with 6-8 weeks. Trump wanted to make it even worse but, thankfully he’s finally listening to his medical experts, and backed away from a NATIONWIDE re-opening.

  19. Protect yourself if you’re vulnerable. Otherwise, do us a favor and live normally. Take a few days off if you feel sick. THANKS

  20. We have this number, from Korea. They’ve already tested close to 350,000 people, and they only have like 9200 positives. It’s not a random sample. Many of the people tested live close to positives but they’re all negative. This scourge is not spreading there; or else they are lying (which is possible).

    1. This scourge is not spreading there; or else they are lying (which is possible).

      You claim a 2.6% infection rate, which is 2,600% higher than than the flu and this is 25X more deadly than swine flu.

      This scourge is not spreading there; or else they are lying (which is possible).

      How did they get to 9,200?

      1. I don’t claim anything. I gave the numbers that Korea reported. They are not testing randomly: first those with symptoms and then, if a positive test, anybody who lives or works in some proximity to the positive. If the neighbors are all negative, then the spread there is very slow. There is no chance that half of U.K. population is infected. The Oxford model is wrong.

        I also didn’t say a word about mortality. Get a grip.

  21. The biggest factor, and one VERY crucial factor left out is the incubation time. Average is 5 days, but it can be as much as 2 weeks. England is not far enough out for all the people sick on March 19th to have started showing symptoms. If half the population is already sick, then next week we may see the NHS overwhelmed with all the cases. Additionally many people that are showing symptoms may not yet be feeling sick enough to find out. It will be curious to watch how England fairs considering the horrible response they have had. Make our NY born head of state look far better then their NY born Head of state.

    1. There’s like 1 case in 10,000 at 2 weeks. SARS-1 was symptomatic at 2-7 days with a few outliers to 10+, and SARS-2 is 4-6 days with a few outliers to 10+. Virtually identical, but longer than your typical cold bug. Very few who got it before 3/19 are still not sick.

  22. Well looks like Iceland has provided testing evidence that soundly trashes this Oxford ‘model’.

    Iceland has easily done the most testing/peep. They have discovered a lot of previously unknown stuff during that testing – eg 40 different mutations of the virus which they have used to actually be able to track which countries the virus came from.

    As of couple days ago, they’ve tested 15,339 people of 364,000 total in Iceland – so the equivalent of about 14 million in the US

    5571 tested who had no symptoms of anything or known contact with anyone positive – 48 of whom tested positive. That’s 0.8% – not 50% that the Oxford model would assert.

    9768 tested who had symptoms of something similar or were part of the tracing/contact – 425 who tested positive. That’s 4.4% – which is in line with a lot of those other places which are proactive and trying to trace and not having a shortage of tests to play catchup and not having a barrier to medical/testing access.

    What that Oxford model has just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in their rambling, incoherent modeling were they even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

  23. “I’ll never make it out of this world alive” …Hank Williams Sr.

  24. Would that be the model that Neil Ferguson just retracted?

  25. Half of the UK infected is not possible. 1-2% is, same as the USA.

  26. Nowadays, we are facing a serious problem which is to fight for the transmission of the Corona Virus. The Corona Virus is in the Pandemic situation. The world is experiencing it and there is no found cure on it. The only thing that we could do is to isolate ourselves to get away with it. Well, while we are isolating ourselves, why not go to this website and get their help? They can help with cleaning our surroundings? Like cutting up some trees that hide the beauty of our house.

  27. in the us 70,000+ people are infected with Covid-19

    1. Published a day before you posted that

      In the United States, at least 81,321 people are known to have been infected with the coronavirus … more cases than China, Italy or any other country has seen,

  28. May God keep us all safe,

  29. 81% said the country should continue social distancing initiatives, including “shelter at home” orders, “despite the impact to the economy.”

    REUTERS: The March 26-27 opinion poll, released Friday, also showed that the public is much more likely to heed the advice of doctors and local government officials than President Donald Trump.

    The president took a hardline approach earlier this month when he urged people to gather only in small groups. Later he appeared to change course, telling reporters that he would like businesses to reopen by Easter, on April 12.

    The poll showed that most Americans do not want that.

    Eighty-one percent said the country should continue social distancing initiatives, including “shelter at home” orders, “despite the impact to the economy.” This includes 89% of Democrats and 70% of Republicans.

    Only 19% said they would like to end social distancing as soon as possible “to get the economy going again,” including 11% of Democrats and 30% of Republicans.

    66% said they would follow the instructions of medical doctors
    64% said they would follow the advice of the CDC,
    51% said they would follow the advice from their state’s governor
    46% would follow healthcare directions from local police.
    ****Only 31% are “very likely” to follow President Trump’s recommendations and advice

    Safe to ignore the raging deniers here, eh? Trump has now boxed himself into a corner, with no way out. He loses WHATEVER he does by Easter. Loses BIGLY

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.