Critical reading....
potential conclusion
but if
it could – could – suggest
The study assumed that
Sunetra Gupta, professor of theoretical epidemiology, who led the study,
sounded a note of caution, however. The findings can only be corroborated through “large-scale serological surveys — antibody testing.”
And the kicker: But she supports the government’s strict measures to prevent the number of cases expanding over the next month beyond the capacity of the NHS.
https://www.wired.co.uk/article/coro...study-immunity
he Oxford study – which has not been published in a scientific journal or scrutinised by other scientists yet – offers a set of hypothetical situations about the possible extent of coronavirus transmission in the UK. The headline statistic, that more than half of the UK population has already been infected with coronavirus, is not supported by real-world data, epidemiologists argue.
“It’s a little concerning that they’ve taken it straight to the media,” says Tim Colbourn, an epidemiologist at University College London’s Institute for Global Health. “It has not been properly sense-checked against any data.”
But this modelling rests on an improbable assumption: that just one in every 1,000 people infected with coronavirus will need to be hospitalised. This assumption just doesn’t match real-world data, says Colbourn. “We can already see just by looking at Italy [...] that that figure has already been exceeded,”