Read on Twitter
1/
TW, #Covid19uk case scenarios
IIUC
Here& #39;s the 2 HUGE problems with this for human beings.
The best many antibody tests can get in accuracy is high 90%s (97% is reasonable)
The 3% are antibodies too close to differentiate
So 3% of results SUGGESTING they& #39;re immune, but https://twitter.com/bbckamal/status/1245800546893774850">https://twitter.com/bbckamal/...
TW, #Covid19uk case scenarios
IIUC
Here& #39;s the 2 HUGE problems with this for human beings.
The best many antibody tests can get in accuracy is high 90%s (97% is reasonable)
The 3% are antibodies too close to differentiate
So 3% of results SUGGESTING they& #39;re immune, but https://twitter.com/bbckamal/status/1245800546893774850">https://twitter.com/bbckamal/...
2/
they are not immune.
The certificate or wristband does not confer immunity.
NOW, if a smaller fraction of the population has the antibodies this problem is amplified.
e.g. If circa 5% of the UK population (call it 3mn people) had #covid19 and we test 10% of the population
they are not immune.
The certificate or wristband does not confer immunity.
NOW, if a smaller fraction of the population has the antibodies this problem is amplified.
e.g. If circa 5% of the UK population (call it 3mn people) had #covid19 and we test 10% of the population
3/
(call that 6mn) to try to catch /everyone/ who has had it, because we& #39;ve tested double the amount of people that actually had covid19 the inaccuracy total is doubled too (it& #39;s still 3%, but 3% of 6mn).
That could be ~180,000 people with certificates of immunity who are NOT
(call that 6mn) to try to catch /everyone/ who has had it, because we& #39;ve tested double the amount of people that actually had covid19 the inaccuracy total is doubled too (it& #39;s still 3%, but 3% of 6mn).
That could be ~180,000 people with certificates of immunity who are NOT
4/
immune.
And this gets WORSE NOT BETTER.
The two ways to prevent this are
a) Only test people you& #39;re sure had covid19. Small, tight, fairly pointless numbers
or
b) Wait until a larger proportion of the population has been exposed, e.g. 30%, THEN test 10%
immune.
And this gets WORSE NOT BETTER.
The two ways to prevent this are
a) Only test people you& #39;re sure had covid19. Small, tight, fairly pointless numbers
or
b) Wait until a larger proportion of the population has been exposed, e.g. 30%, THEN test 10%
5/
In the original scenario where circa 5% of the population have had covid19, if (and data is patchy but this doesn& #39;t seem unreasonable) IF there& #39;s a 1% mortality rate, 1% of 3mn would be 30,000.
Covid has always been as-much or more about healthcare systems being overwhelmed
In the original scenario where circa 5% of the population have had covid19, if (and data is patchy but this doesn& #39;t seem unreasonable) IF there& #39;s a 1% mortality rate, 1% of 3mn would be 30,000.
Covid has always been as-much or more about healthcare systems being overwhelmed
6/
frankly the maths on that has always been horrifying AF and I& #39;m not going to break it out here, this part is bad enough.
In the later scenario above where 30% of the population has had covid19, at a 1% mortality rate ...
And THIS was the path the tories chose, rather than
frankly the maths on that has always been horrifying AF and I& #39;m not going to break it out here, this part is bad enough.
In the later scenario above where 30% of the population has had covid19, at a 1% mortality rate ...
And THIS was the path the tories chose, rather than
