Forum menu
Danish mask study published today. Expect some write up on lockdownsceptics and elsewhere tomorrow.
You couldn't make this stuff up.
Big effects need few participants but are pretty rare.
The adherence is pretty shambolic,
The face masks provided to participants were high-quality surgical masks with a filtration rate of 98%
without clear instructions on how and when to wear them or ensuring those instructions were followed against a backdrop of social pressure against mask wearing whilst measuring the wrong thing (when surely the important thing is spread of the virus by mask wearers to others) in settings where noone else was wearing a mask where the criteria was "outside the house".
Personal observation in the UK shows a huge percentage of mask wearing is either ineffective or actively negative. People wearing sopping wet masks, nose exposed, chin masks ... people driving in cars alone wearing masks
Based on the lowest adherence reported in the mask group during follow-up, 46% of participants wore the mask as recommended, 47% predominantly as recommended, and 7% not as recommended.
What does that mean? 46% wore the mask 100% of the time outside the house or 46% wore the mask over their face correctly and removed it using safe methods 100% of the time?
Not quite following how she’s been asked to self isolate a week after her husband?
He was told to isolate because he'd been in contact with someone who has tested positive.
A week later she is told to isolate because she'd been in contact with someone else who has tested positive. Which could be her husband if he has developed symptoms and tested positive after being infectious before being told to isolate.
Of course, they could have ****ed up his isolation and she caught it off him when he should have been isolating from her. I'm guessing their house would be big enough for them to properly keep apart for two weeks.
Am I going to be able to re-open my barber shop on Dec 2nd?
I know nobody actually knows but is it likely? I’m in Kirklees.
I wouldn't bank on it considering we have one of the highest rates in the country at the moment and T2 never did anything to stop the increase pre lockdown, areas such as Batley, Dewsbury, Mirfield and most of the surrounding areas are the main culprits with rates of over 1K+ per 100,000.
Personal observation in the UK shows a huge percentage of mask wearing is either ineffective or actively negative.
This was always going to be the case. Being clear that social distancing is much more effective than casual* mask wearing should always have been part of the government’s messaging. To open up public transport and workplaces masks are an essential tool, but they are not magic. To be fair, they’ve always added things like “make space” to their “wear a mask” messaging, but undermined that with their “covid secure” concept. And as for “one metre plus”…?!?
[*by which I mean untrained and unprofessional]
I see things are going well in Sweden.
Yeah. Many infections, not many deaths or ICU admissions. Yet.
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/09f821667ce64bf7be6f9f87457ed9aa
most of the surrounding areas are the main culprits with rates of over 1K+ per 100,000.
Holy ****!, that's 4 x the numbers in Glasgow!
A fascinating discussion about the pros and cons of Lockdown. Why are we not seeing this sort of debate in the UK media?
Sorry, ignore the subtitle commentary and concentrate on the debate.
Sweden has backpedaled on the controlled infection a little. But it is wrong to assume that they did little. They simply relied on the public to act appropriately. Their new policy is to "help" the public continue to do so.
The adherence is pretty shambolic,
Welcome to experimental medicine. 20% of people prescribed statins do not collect a repeat prescription. The analysis (ITT or Intent to treat) account for that and are conservative.
A modest reduction, say 15% and a 17% increase in contacts with mask-wearing means that any effects will be largely undetectable. I had always assumed an effect size of 20% and have not been disappointment. I'm still happy to wear a mask though in enclosed public spaces.
I know nobody actually knows but is it likely? I’m in Kirklees.
#expect to leave lockdown and re-enter whatever tier you left. higher restrictions (Tier 4 - or further lockdown) are likely, but I imagine after the Christmas mass-transmission event.
BTW there is firm data to show that peak influenza mortality and pneumococcal pneumonia hospital admissions rise a week after the holidays in ordinary years. The same is likely again 🙁
Why are we not seeing this sort of debate in the UK media?
Look back in this thread for "health warnings" about Ivor Cummins. I can't be bothered to do it again... QUACK.
Look back in this thread for “health warnings” about Ivor Cummins. I can’t be bothered to do it again… QUACK.
Sorry, that's why I said concentrate on the actual debate and not the commentary. Why is he a QUACK though? Is that the term used for someone who has a different opinion to the official government narrative these days?
Is that the term used for someone who has a different opinion to the official government narrative these days?
No.
[tl:dr] six months on, your immune system works as it should and you probably won’t get reinfected with Covid too quickly after a first infection. Or after a vaccine by implication.
If you catch covid, get better, and are then continually surrounded by covid infected people (say, in varying healthcare settings) does that continued exposure keep your immune system "current" i.e. kind of resetting the six month / eighteen month timer?
Lee is looking a little foolish at the moment on his comments on vaccines [14 min] - but it is still early days for duration of protection and coverage of strains. It is a typical response one sees in someone who is certain of their facts despite uncertainty in the science. A few points from the debate:
LEE:
Not new plague - IFR is currently about 0.5%, that is 4x the rate for flu and the low deaths in the young is partly due to effective management of those hospitalised.
Evidence on societal basis - now hard evidence that interventions reduce transmission
More harm than good - the economic debate is a political decision not a scientific one
Within envelope of past experience - All-cause mortality has exceeded all but 1918 influenza
Should increase capacity in healthcare - Nice, perhaps Father Christmas will bring it in December - appeals to what one should have done in the past do not help debate.
+ve vases = testing - Not really, decisions have focussed on hospital ADMISSIONS and capacity not cases.
No evidence of lifespan reduction - yes there is and life expectancy of an 80yo without COVID is nearly 10 years.
Other deaths >1M/yr - indeed, and it is additive. 0.25M deaths from COVID19 in the US to date.
I could go on... But decisions regarding lockdown and restriction of transmission are political and based on weighing healthcare and the economy. i have said many times that there are NO good choices. But I am minded to note that the economy bounces back relatively rapidly. Think of flying after the Iceland volcanic eruption (travel was back in 3mo). For COVID, two years is a reasonable time frame to normality. We're a third of the way and things are looking up.
My rule of thumb is that a person's certainty on a position is inversely proportional to their eventual likelihood of being correct. "Often wrong, seldom in doubt". There is no shame in saying you don't know, but are investigating with appropriate experiments. Managing the doubt in science is what is important.
"More harm than good" is not simply an economic issue- there is in my view an alarming tendancy to support authoritarian responses that inhibits normal social interaction to an unprecendented degree and for an indefinite timescale. The effects of this are unknown.
But I am minded to note that the economy bounces back relatively rapidly.
Early on in the pandemic Bill Gates made the point that "economic damage is reversible but piles of dead bodies aren't."
Would be good if our Government leveled with us and told us how many dead bodies they think are acceptable to "save Christmas"
The effects of this are unknown.
I would, however, argue that the effects of the counter are pretty predictable. They may be unpalatable, but they are predictable. Hence it is a political decision.
As a general rule, thing's don't always happen to other people. Life experience has taught me "why not you?", for significant but rare events. Hence "significantly higher" mortality in the general population and "stretched healthcare services" might be acceptable to the general public on an arbitrary level. Until it is your spouse who is denied care because every ITU bed was filled, or the staff were off sick, and no reasonable treatment was available at that hastily assembled bed on an industrial estate because we failed to make provision for "wasted" HDU/ITU care 10-years ago.
The picture is bigger than "a bit like flu", unfortunately. And the economy is a part of that picture.
squadra
Free Member
“More harm than good” is not simply an economic issue- there is in my view an alarming tendancy to support authoritarian responses that inhibits normal social interaction to an unprecendented degree and for an indefinite timescale. The effects of this are unknown.
I don't like it but I "support it" because it's a tool we know that works. Your counter suggestions? Let Covid rip through society? That's alarming to me.
Oh dear Nature seems to think closing educational institutions ranks second most effective non-clinical intervention
Meanwhile the WSJ reports studies that contradict common sense on lockdown effect -
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-failed-experiment-of-covid-lockdowns-11599000890
"Six months into the Covid-19 pandemic, the U.S. has now carried out two large-scale experiments in public health—first, in March and April, the lockdown of the economy to arrest the spread of the virus, and second, since mid-April, the reopening of the economy. The results are in. Counterintuitive though it may be, statistical analysis shows that locking down the economy didn’t contain the disease’s spread and reopening it didn’t unleash a second wave of infections."
Early on in the pandemic Bill Gates made the point that “economic damage is reversible but piles of dead bodies aren’t.”
Would be good if our Government leveled with us and told us how many dead bodies they think are acceptable to “save Christmas”
But the people dying are mostly in their 80's, most with serious co-morbidities. Why can't we have a grown up discussion based on the assumption that we all die at some point from one cause or another and what should be the balance of healthcare between people with Covid and people dying because of other reasons. And still, even if the death toll from Covid triples from where it is currently there will only be an extra 80 million people added to the planet this year instead of 83 million.
Over the last few months it seems like the NHS has taken a deliberate decision to stop or postpone treating non-covid patients to avoid needing to decide not to treat Covid or non-Covid patients at some theoretical point in the future. Throughout this time the NHS has remained well below 100% capacity. Long term this will lead to many more times the number of premature deaths of people from other conditions than those caused by Covid directly.
So what are we saving the NHS for exactly? Is now in our time of national crisis not the time to be using the NHS in full, not saving it for some point in the future than may never come based purely on some dodgy data, misleading graphs and doom-laden talk from Mr Whitty?
Kelvin
This was always going to be the case. Being clear that social distancing is much more effective than casual* mask wearing should always have been part of the government’s messaging. To open up public transport and workplaces masks are an essential tool, but they are not magic. To be fair, they’ve always added things like “make space” to their “wear a mask” messaging, but undermined that with their “covid secure” concept. And as for “one metre plus”…?!?
As I'm sure we agree the government's messaging has been anything but clear however the point here is people using masks in a way likely to increase infections.
I'm hardly claiming to be an expert but it would seem "common sense" that a mask dripping with mucus and saliva then placed over a face would be an ideal place for a coronavirus to replicate.
The people I see walking/running about with "chin masks" are not then disgarding them but sticking them over their face and getting on a bus etc then touching the same surfaces before getting off and grubbing about with their mask?
TiReD
Welcome to experimental medicine. 20% of people prescribed statins do not collect a repeat prescription. The analysis (ITT or Intent to treat) account for that and are conservative.
A modest reduction, say 15% and a 17% increase in contacts with mask-wearing means that any effects will be largely undetectable. I had always assumed an effect size of 20% and have not been disappointment. I’m still happy to wear a mask though in enclosed public spaces.
What I really really getting at is that they are simply asking if people followed.
Please don't take this as aimed at you but this seems a common way companies industry manipulate their results by either manipulating the control or the active sample especially when they expect marginal results.
Total off the cuff example ... but some sponsored research 20yrs ago tested a sample of coeliacs to see if low amounts of prolamines (200ppm) in their diet were not harmful.
The conclusion was they "suffered no more damage" than the control.
There was no monitoring or education of the control's diet or immunoglobulin response only the active sample being fed prolamines.
Would be good if our Government leveled with us and told us how many dead bodies YOU think are acceptable to “save Christmas”
Reworded for reality. Its whats the public perceive. Some don't give a toss and will have a 25 person Christmas lunch, some will stick to the rules, some are still wondering what to do for the best if they have elderly / remote relatives.
Yes Gov.UK can provide their judgement based on the science of spreading C19, but it'll be just that and whatever they do will be open to broad interpretations, abuse and criticism with anything other than a lockdown resulting in growth in cases.
Very much a case of "would you rather" with an open ended own goal.
let it rip
Ahh that scary phrase 'let it rip' that's been dreamt up by the governments propaganda machine so that it can be used to sully all who disagree with them.
I've not seen anyone say we should 'let it rip', more people who care about the long term future of our country and the long term health of our population discussing why 'Lockdown' might not be the best or only approach to mitigate the impacts of Covid.
Why are people so afraid to have that discussion without resorting to phrases like 'let it rip', 'granny killer' etc?
Why are people so afraid to have that discussion without resorting to phrases like ‘let it rip’, ‘granny killer’ etc?
It's another sign that folk can't (or can't be bothered to) look at other opinions to their own. Red or Blue, leave or remain, they need to have a side, and go to the nuclear option of the view opposing their view.
The truth is always somewhere in between.
The US is a big place with multiple epidemics at various stages at any given time. Experience in the UK does not bear out the US picture.
The UK epidemic was brought under control by significant contact restriction from mid-March onward, and increased once restrictions were lifted from July, with acceleration from early September. The North has been more affected after lifting restrictions because their first epidemic started later and hence was at a higher level than the South when restrictions were lifted, from whence it grew at basically the same universal rate. The epidemic will decline presently based on current restrictions (Tiers and lockdown2), but not to the extent it did from April-June, only to rise again after Christmas.
The impact of school closures has been harder to demonstrate, but the Tier system has shown a smaller effect than in April. It is a dynamic but predictable system subject (one hopes) to the eventual natural brake that is immunity. There is almost no evidence immunity has played a significant role in the current epidemic. Were it to have done so, then there would be no reemergence of infection after restrictions are lifted (something noted in all EU countries notably Sweden), and the need for a vaccine to give people "past infection history" would be moot.
That's about the clearest explanation I can give. There is much debate and exceptionalism, but on a global scale there is a pretty clear picture with little exception. The pathogen is about twice as transmissible and four times as pathogenic as influenza. Spread can be controlled by restrictions in contacts, and returns when relaxed. Infection and a vaccine will confer some immunity and this WILL eventually limit spread.
In the future, COVID19 will become a childhood infection like other seasonal coronaviruses. It will have additional mortality in the elderly, but this will be mitigated (in part) by emergent therapies. I'm pretty optimistic myself.
[tl:dr] the obvious explanation for the control of the global epidemic makes predictions that have come to pass universally. Eventually COVID19 will be a virus that gives your children's children a cold (likely several colds).
Some don’t give a toss and will have a 25 person Christmas lunch, some will stick to the rules, some are still wondering what to do for the best if they have elderly / remote relatives.
I find it astounding that ANYONE is doing or not doing Xmas because of government guidelines.
We're unlikely to do Xmas, but not because someone tells us we should or shouldn't, but because it's daft to do so.
Why can’t we have a grown up discussion
Why do people who don't like lockdowns use phrases like 'grown up discussions' as if their viewpoint is the only adult one?
let it rip
Prof Gupta has argued for controlled transmission whilst protecting those most at risk. I have already shown that countries with the poorest 2018 influenza outcomes, those with highest nursing home usage and those who spend less on healthcare have the poorest outcomes for COVID19 excess mortality.
How well do you believe the UK will protect those most at risk? Hint - we're terrible in an ordinary year. As I said, what society deems acceptable goes out the window at the personal level. Everyone wants higher taxes until they come to pay them.
As for the mortality - some facts. The MEDIAN age of ITU admission has been 61. A QUARTER of all people admitted have been under 50 - yes that's this readership. there have been plenty in their 20's - OK they didn't die, but they took up beds that a stroke patient might need. Only 1/10 in ITU have significant comorbidities. What that means is that modern healthcare is pretty good at keeping people alive (thanks @crikey). The ITU mortality rate has fallen with better patient management and dexamethasone.
Were healthcare to be swamped, the average age of deaths will start to fall because treatment will not be able to keep up. The NHS have tried to balance a constant demand (CV, cancer, dementia...) with a potentially explosive demand (COVID19 admissions). The margins for error on something that can grow so fast (cases doubled every three days in March), may have led to too much restriction during the first epidemic wave. OK, that is a valid debate. Now the NHS is trying to maintain normal services with a reduced margin of error. I think that's also perfectly reasonable now we have learned more. But worry about CV events in January as more people are admitted after Christmas with COVID19 and HDU/ITU beds start to fill again.
[tl;dr] Do not become fixated by the deaths figure, nor the "doom and gloom" plots. The truth is ALWAYS more complex than portrayed in media soundbites.
(thanks crikey)
Can't be said too often. And thanks to all crikey's colleagues as well, obviously.
dreamt up by the governments propaganda machine
THIS IS UNTRUE. It is conspiracy theory nonsense, and should be called out as such. It, is BULLSHIT.
pondlife
Free Member
let it ripAhh that scary phrase ‘let it rip’ that’s been dreamt up by the governments propaganda machine so that it can be used to sully all who disagree with them.
I’ve not seen anyone say we should ‘let it rip’, more people who care about the long term future of our country and the long term health of our population discussing why ‘Lockdown’ might not be the best or only approach to mitigate the impacts of Covid.
Why are people so afraid to have that discussion without resorting to phrases like ‘let it rip’, ‘granny killer’ etc?
I use the phrase purposely as you imply that's what you consider to be a valid option. As for "propaganda", oh Lord, your not one of the conspiracy ones are you?
Would you rather I use another term?
"Throw the NHS under the bus." (The NHS isn't a name, its people.)
"Discard the elderly/infirm people as, well, they are going to die anyway right?"
Again, give us a valid alternative till vaccines arrive? I'd be interested to hear.
The UK epidemic was brought under control by significant contact restriction from mid-March onward, and increased once restrictions were lifted from July, with acceleration from early September.
How does this explanation that our lockdown worked fit with the Sweden graph that shows the same decline (aka Gompertz curve) despite restrictions there being far more relaxed?
Also it was well documented that the peak in UK infections was reached around a week before the actual Lockdown came into place. In other words cases were already declining before lockdown. Also why no local spikes observed with BLM protests, VE day, packed beaches etc as per this graph?
Pondlife
How does this explanation that our lockdown worked fit with the Sweden graph that shows the same decline (aka Gompertz curve) despite restrictions there being far more relaxed?
Compare those figures with other Scandinavian countries to see how "well" they've done. Including the economy. Sweden is no Covid nirvana.
As for people on the beaches etc. Covid doesn't spread well outdoors with free airflow all around you. Its indoors that the real danger exists. It's now winter, beaches won't be full of people, houses will...
Again, what's your alternative?
I find it astounding that ANYONE is doing or not doing Xmas because of government guidelines.
My mum, bless her, is old, confused and very vulnerable to covid. If tye gov says she can visit for xmas she will want to. She will argue that its her life and she has lived it anyway, get busy living or.....
If the gov do the sensible thing she'll stay at home, they wont though. I'll have to decide. We could kill granny, she might be dead by next xmas anyway... Tough decisions ahead.
Edited to add.......the MIL can stay away though!!
In other words cases were already declining before lockdown.
Did you wait till the date Mr Johnson told you to stay at home to change your behaviour? Did everyone else? No one I know did.
Compare those figures with other Scandinavian countries to see how “well” they’ve done. Including the economy. Sweden is no Covid nirvana.
Again, what’s your alternative?
They have done better than us with less lockdown. And the shape of the infection curve is the same. I'm not comparing good or bad here, just that the shape of the infection curve seems to suggest that a 'virus does as a virus does' regardless of the strength of the lockdown. Still, Peru had a hugely draconian lockdown - look at their Covid stats!
Sorry not read much beyond the last few posts, but is the poster above suggesting lockdown v1 didn't have a massive impact on reducing transmission, whilst end of lockdown was directly related to a massive increase?
As I recall, prior to schools and pubs opening, in Scotland we were down to less than 30 cases per day at one point. Now it's 30 times that number.
Did you wait till Mr Johnson told you to stay at home to change your behaviour? Did everyone else? No one I know did.
So no need for lockdown then? We could have all been treated as adults after all?
‘virus does as a virus does’ regardless
Narrator: "The evidence does not suggest this."
So no need for lockdown then? We could have all been treated as adults after all?
As per your Sweden in spring example, what matters is social distancing. How the government gets us to do this can vary. We, in the UK, have never had a lockdown. Some countries have had (and/or are currently having) proper lockdowns, with people told not to leave the house. Other countries have been able to offer financial support to encourage social distancing, coupled with advice to do so, and avoided having to instruct or enforce much at all. The social distancing is the tool. Lockdown is just a (very emotive) word, with many meanings.
Sorry not read much beyond the last few posts, but is the poster above suggesting lockdown v1 didn’t have a massive impact on reducing transmission, whilst end of lockdown was directly related to a massive increase?
As I recall, prior to schools and pubs opening, in Scotland we were down to less than 30 cases per day at one point. Now it’s 30 times that number.
It would be strange if Covid-19, which is a respiratory virus, didn't follow all similar respiratory viruses and be subject to a seasonal effect. You know like every year in the Autumn/Winter when people die of flu etc, and the NHS gets put under pressure every winter because of it. Yet in the summer they appear to mostly go away? Very strange how this would happen.
Normally though we accept that the NHS will be under severe pressure in the Autumn/Winter because of this. we don't destroy our economy, our jobs and way of life and stop treating Cancer patients in the process.
How does this explanation that our lockdown worked fit with the Sweden graph that shows the same decline (aka Gompertz curve) despite restrictions there being far more relaxed?
That tidy old chestnut again. The Gompertz curve is simply the solution of a family of models called Generalised logistic functions. They reflect the rate of an exponential process declining with time under some constraint. In an epidemic process the reasons for that constraint may be 1) restriction of contacts and 2) reduction in people who can be infected - aka immunity.
A STRONG prediction of immunity is that if contacts were not the reason for control, then once contacts are restored, transmission will remain low because people cannot be infected. Mike Yeadon has stated 50% of the population have been infected (which bares no relation to seroprevalence data - it's less than 20% universally). That has not come to pass in the UK. Transmission in Tier 1 had a doubling time of 7-10 days in the South West from September 1st and the hospitals are seeing the effects of that now.
Sweden laudably left its residents to use their common sense. They also closed some schools btw. their contact levels were still higher than elsewhere, so they saw a slower rate of decline than elsewhere (quid pro quo). Seroprevalence data from Sweden shows a slightly higher level than their neighbors. Now, once restrictions were relaxed, infections increased, hospital admissions increased and so have ITU admissions. OK not as fast as previously - but that is because contacts are still at lower levels than they were in early March. Sweden has learnt a hard lesson, but they have informed greatly on possible measures. Their neighbors have had significantly better outcomes by all measures including economic. The Swedish government have decided to follow their neighbors a little more closely.
There is NOTHING magical about Gompertz, nor the fact that the primary route of transmission for a respiratory pathogen is closed spaces. My favorite is a spin class in Canada infecting 44 people in one go! The virus does not appear to be highly transmitted to any significant extent in outdoor groups in well-ventilated areas. I have no issue with that. Catching the train to a football match... No thanks.
I'm always happy to debate and appear on lockdownsceptics.org too (djaustin). Science is intrinsically skeptical. I was fitting Gompertz equations to the global epidemic in March before a certain Nobel Prize winner - it told me that lockdowns have a significant effect in epidemic growth 🙂
stop treating Cancer patients in the process
And around we go again... social distancing is our current best tool, for now, to keep the virus under control enough to enable cancer care to continue as best as possible. If we don't take measures to control this virus this winter, cancer care will be decimated.
pondlife
Joined November 18, 2020
What I find dispiriting is that despite TiRed's post, I can pretty much guarantee pondlife won't change his views. Presumuably because TiRed isn't grown up enough. Or perhaps people will select their facts to suit themselves and continue to believe what they want to believe.
Haha I should not have gone to that website TiRED. I might have to go and sit in a cool dark room this evening.
Mike Yeadon has stated 50% of the population have been infected (which bares no relation to seroprevalence data – it’s less than 20% universally)
I think his argument is that T-Cells and prior exposure to other similar Coronaviruses comes into play. Also that mild infections would not generate sufficient antibodies to be recognisable in an antibody test, the virus being dealt with in the body by other means. Also that antibodies decline gradually after initial infection (immunity memory remaining in the body though) and antibodies are generally not getting re-spiked or re-made because of no more exposure to Covid-19 in the community, i.e. it's mostly gone.
This can be bourne out by the recent testing in Liverpool where the level of infection detected in the population was at similar level to the'False Positive' rate of the test used in question. In other words, nearly all gone.
People are in hospitals dying of respiratory diseases right now, but most of that is not Covid-19.
I don't set out to change people's views. Science does not care for what we believe. I also view challenge as important. Falsifiable predictions are necessary, and the picture I have painted above makes such predictions that broadly have come to pass in multiple countries and settings.
Yes, SARS-CoV-2 will BECOME a seasonal coronavirus, in fact it will be a childhood infection due to vaccination practices. But this is not that season I am afraid. Wait a few years and you will see infections peak around February. The increase since September is totally out of phase with other seasonal infections. Peak influenza is January NOT September. The narrative does not fit the facts when exposed to close inspection. But one must always check the narrative.
I think his argument is that T-Cells and prior exposure to other similar Coronaviruses comes into play. Also that mild infections would not generate sufficient antibodies to be recognisable in an antibody test, the virus being dealt with in the body by other means.
Point me to a single publication that states that such T-cells have a protective effect. You have T-cells that recognise many things (including components of toothpaste). Also the ONS survey looking at both infections and antibodies has shown that even asymptomatic infections generate seroconversion - they follow the same people and test for both at regular intervals. Less than 20% of the population have had the infection. Wanting it to be more based on presumption about how immunity works is not science.
People are in hospitals dying of respiratory diseases right now, but most of that is not Covid-19.
About 15% MORE people died in Week 45 than the highest recorded number in the same week in any of the previous ten years. That will rise eventually to about 25-50% above historic mean levels around Christmas. Other respiratory pathogens are available, but there are many people currently suffering COVID hypoxia and clogging NHS resources. they may not die, and we could just send them home?