Kimmy11 wrote on Tue Apr 21, 2020 3:34pm:
What the figures tell us, Aitch, is that any one of those data sets, taken in isolation, can tell a different story (and, being humans, many will pick the set that best suits their argument). However, my belief is that these figures only start to make sense when they're ALL built into a com...
Read more...
...puter model; even then, they have to be constantly updated as they evolve. Sophisticated algorithms are written to represent non-numercial data, i.e. processes (in this case, individual intervention strategies such as contact tracing, testing, isolation, etc.), so that the approaches taken by each country in managing the disease in their own geography can also be included in the model, for comparison. Even if we assumed that all the data by country on Worldometer is correct, it isn't sufficient information to say that the UK "is doing at least as well, if not better" than other countries, without computer modelling.
So, back to my original complaint about the UK government's approach to how they intially dealt with Covid-19: their "60% herd immunity" theory - it had nothing to do with these statistics. It was based on assumptions about previous pandemics, even though, like the rest of the world, the UK government knew this was a "novel" coronavirus, something we had never seen before. The WHO and countries ahead of the UK on the infection curve were saying, in particular Italy, "don't make the same mistake we did", yet they still persisted with their herd immunity theory and delayed taking the most effective action, i.e. lockdown, until computer modelling proved their initial approach to be flawed.
I'm sorry, I know this isn't what you want to hear. I know you'd rather I say that the UK government has handled this superbly, but I'm afraid the evidence does not support that.
Kind regards,
Kim
Are you a professional writer of utter drivel or just a gifted amateur?