I agree. The publically available data looks so variable that it is potentially flawed. I've been pointing that out for a while.
I also notice that the UK government has been doing random sampling, and after doing it, changed its policy and locked us down.
There are alarming features to the coronavirus which the article doesn't fully address.
The exponential charts of both cases and deaths show it is extremely infectious.
It also has deadly characteristics for a large number of identified and hospitalised patients in the time frame we have experienced.
It may prove to be only as deadly as the flu, but because its acceleration is so swift, it appears more scary than it would otherwise, because the deaths happen so much faster.
But in that case, we will be able to see the virus' exponential growth curves fading without intervention. So far, the only thing that has slowed it down is isolation.
If someone could show that the death rate is more like 0.01 than 1%, I'd agree it is not worth a lockdown. But the burden of discovery is on researchers and statisticians to find much stronger evidence that this is the case. The destruction of the Italian Health System by the bullet train quality of the virus is not something I look forward to seeing in the UK or the US.
| 