data doesnt lie, shoots, but people do. Some even go as far to quote data that they make up. 3891 deaths in hospital in week 24 so not exactly "empty of deaths" was it. Yes down on the 5 year average but not the 500 down you were quoting.
I'm sorry if you don't understand the data, but that doesn't mean I made them up. The average number of deaths occurring in week 24 in hospitals is 4251. So far (to end of week 24 + 8 days) 3508 deaths have been registered, which occurred in week 24. The 3891 you quote is the number of deaths registered in week 24. This is not at all the number of deaths that occurred in week 24.
We don't know how many deaths have occurred, except that it is a number greater than 3508, and that between W23 + 8 days and W24+8 days, the number of weekly deaths fell by 306. So given a real fall of 306 on a like-for-like basis, and a W24 registration figure of 3891 for deaths occurring during some days earlier (i.e. some in W24, more in W23, some in W22, W21, etc., when deaths were higher), a figure of 500 below average, or around 3750 occurrences, seemed reasonable. You can of course produce your own estimate.
Bit like saying no-one in America is being asked to pay for coronavirus care when they some are being asked for co-payments. Severe cases also need considerable amounts of rehabilitation, not clear how long their government will be paying for the ongoing care needs.
Now who's the liar? Please debate in good faith.
I said nothing of the kind, I was only clarifying that multi-hundred-thousand-dollar covid-19 bills have been purely notional, and don't represent any real debt owed by anyone.
I try to correct things which aren't true. It's fine to say 'people might be put off seeking treatment by their large co-pays', or whatever, but if you post something false I will correct it.
This study is about why the virus is so widespread in the uk - essentially they think it was imported many times and more often from Spain and France than Italy. If you have 1400+ (they think the number they identified is an underestimate) separate sources of infection then you have a widespread problem.
Eh, the sources of infection in February/March are no longer relevant.
It's true that if you have many sources importing the virus then that will spread it, but that isn't necessary at all. The virus originated in China and spread there - there was no importer.
If you had one importer you could spread it round the country in time. The imported cases might help in that they might spread it further faster, but that's not obvious - if you have one imported case spreading the virus round London, for example, then people visiting and leaving London can spread it to all parts of the country. Planes just spread it faster....
The failure in February/March was to think we could track the virus - that strategy failed. What worked was blunt force rules that made it more difficult to spread. Sure, if people are known to be infectious then that's good and keep them away from others. But there are many cases of now of healthy athletes etc. being positive without feeling a thing.
We still have a problem that is widespread, hence the blanket rules across the country (ahem, England), but the scale is vastly reduced. Stopping very high risk activities, drastically reducing the scale of infection, alone have cut the infection rate such that we are not likely to suffer many more deaths (i.e. a thousand or so from new infections, which is insignificant).
Stopping the spread in terms of geography seems a little futile in that we are intending people to go back to normal life, and nowhere in the country is now 'plague-ridden' as it was previously, so measures calculated to stop people moving round defeat the point of 'getting back to living'. Rather we assume that there is a risk everywhere, and we scale up 'contact tracing' so that we can further reduce the spread.
But of course, even with contact tracing, we must assume that many people don't give a shit, and will spread the virus, even if they know, or should suspect, that they are infected.