wrote:
On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 06:49:03 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 21:07:18 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, Recliner remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 14:55:38 on Fri, 19 Jun
2020, remarked:

given Ferguson was prediction 500K deaths I think we can say that the
model needed a bit of tweaking.

Wasn't that if we "did nothing". But we did 'something'.

Yes, it was the most pessimistic, worst-case scenario. Even without the
official measures, that wouldn't have come to pass, as the public would
have adopted their own informal versions if people were dying at that rate.

If they knew how bad it was. Reports today say that the death rate at
Easter was significantly higher than the government were briefing,
because they only included hospital deaths which also tested positive.

On the flip side , the coronavirus death list also includes people who died
WITH the virus, not just those of died OF the virus. Other countries only
measure the latter.

As often mentioned, it's best to look at excess deaths, to avoid arguments
about whether death certificates are consistent or accurate. The BBC web
site has an interactive map that lets you compare the excess deaths per
capita in any chosen area with the national average:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274

In most of the country, the excess deaths are now running at a low rate,
but I find that in some parts of the country that were hit hard and early,
the excess deaths are now negative. In other words, the virus claimed the
lives of some of the frail people who would have died in June a couple of
months early. Ealing and Hounslow, boroughs adjacent to Heathrow, are
examples where the current death rate is below their norm.

But, to pick a purely random example, County Durham, still has a high CV-19
death rate, so excess deaths are still significant.