ACTUAL CORONA INFECTION IN INDIA POSSIBLY 17 TIMES HIGHER THAN OFFICIAL NUMBERS: CLAIMS STUDY

VARANASI: Official data suggest that in India about 4.5 crore people have been infected with COVID-19 so far. However, a scientific study by scientists from Banaras Hindu University and involving those from several institutes across India has claimed that the actual corona infection in India was possibly 17 times higher. The study led by BHU geneticist Professor Gyaneshwer Chaubey, Department of Zoology, Institute of Science, also involved 88 scientists from 34 research institutes across the country. This team of scientists conducted serosurvey (antibody testing) among 2301 individuals in urban areas of fourteen Indian districts in six states during the month of September-December 2020. The most striking aspect of this study was that a large proportion of the Indian population was asymptomatic for COVID infection and the age group 26-35 had the maximum number of asymptomatic people. The study has been published in the prestigious science journal International Journal of Infectious Diseases (IJID). Researchers suggested that Antibody test in people after any corona wave accurately assesses the actual infection. Thus, adopting the same process, the team conducted this research among large number of people (street vendors) living in urban areas from fourteen Indian districts who were most at risk of corona infection. Samples were taken of only those people who self-reported that they never had any Covid symptoms or positive RT PCR test. The minimum proportion of antibody-positive people was observed in Raipur district of Chhattisgarh state (2%), while the maximum proportion of antibody-positive persons was found in Ghazipur district (47%) of Uttar Pradesh state. The research suggests that the difference between the official numbers of infection and the actual possible infections, could be due to the high number of asymptomatic cases. The study relied on mathematical modelling to arrive into the assessment. Prof. Gyaneshwer Chaubey said the value should be viewed with caution, keeping in mind the limited geographical coverage of the study