>> >>Deaths per million pop reflects what?
>>
>> If we had had the same rate we would have had c. 10,000 not 45,000
>> deaths.
My question was what does the statistic reflect?
>> Directly it can only be either or a combination of lower infection rate
True. By ordering people to do what they do not have the common sense to do. When it is not successful, as compulsion rarely is, then why not blame the lack of common sense? At least at the same time as blaming the rules.
>>or lower infection mortality.
How?
>> - Better infection controls (e.g. earlier 'lockdowns', better management of care homes,
>> earlier use of masks)
This is the infection rate, and even then only a delating tactic.
>> - Better Healthcare generally, possibly related to preparedness, capacity or facilities
Perhaps. But I think blaming the state of the NHS on Johnson is pushing it. I don't like him, but really.
>> - Better or earlier effective testing, tracking and tracing
Infection not mortality.
>> - less mixing?
Only infection delay.
>> - better compliance?
Only infection delay.
>> - younger demographic?
And healthier / fitter perhaps. Also age, smoking, drinking, fitness, lifestyle, pollution, etc etc. For example, if you're old and sick in Chile you'll have died long before COVID-19 got to you. And there are only 800,000 people over the age of 80. You'd think both would impact the mortality rate.
>> - fewer imported cases?
Not relevant really. The original case(s) were imported. And by and large they were brought home, not taken elsewhere. Related to infection rate only.
>> But the difference is huge - between 300% & 400% more deaths, proportionately, in the
>> UK.
Proportionately? Surely a per pop stat is already proportionate. Or is that what you meant and I'm misreading?
You are quite correct in that we should understand the reasons behind the difference. But it's not Johnson or his Government.
>> It would be most interesting to know in what proportions the difference arises directly from
>> lower infection rate or lower infection mortality.
Interesting but very difficult. Examples; the demographic distribution of infection is not the same between the two countries. The data recorded against death and infection are not easily comparable. Cause of death is uncertain. Testing numbers, testing demographic and test subject selection are not even vaguely consistent between countries and this impacts demographic split of detected infections.
etc. etc. etc.
What we do know;
- There is a virus for which currently there is no vaccine
- There is uncertainty about immunity either post infection or via vaccine
- It particularly kills the vulnerable
- Barring the most amazing luck in mutation it is not going away.
and most importantly of all; it spreads in a similar fashion to the common cold, you should take take similar steps to avoid catching it.
You'd think advertising that last would do the trick, but no. However, I still have optimism about the likely impact on country average IQ levels.
The trouble is, asking members of the human race to take steps because it will protect others though they are at little risk themselves is a bit of a no hoper.
The virus levels are stable here and have been for pushing three months. Falling slightly even. Schools and universities are still remote learning. That's about the only difference I can see.
|
