Franchise FCSnowball BTW
According to you, and the Oxford clowns "Over half of the UK have had Coronavirus"
So over half of the population of Reading has had Coronavirus!!
So over half of the population of HobNob has had Coronavirus. Shout out folks!
So over half of the 650 MPs in Westminster have had Coronavirus. (I think about a dozen are self-isolating but just a handful have been diagnosed with actual Covid)... remember "over half" That means, if Oxford are right 326+ MPs have had Coronavirus.
And to go back to logic, we have had over a quarter of a million of Coronavirus tests = 252,958. Half of that is 126,479
OVER half is 126,480 or higher. But we have TESTED and only 51,608 have had it. Less than 20%
If ever we needed proof that you don’t understand statistics and sampling it’s this.
Over half the population of the country COULD be true even if there were NO cases in Reading
Is that enough bold and large ?
Of course it COULD be as you say. A UK statistic COULD BE that the whole of London has it and nobody else. But I know and you know that is NOT the case.
The Oxford model SPECIFICALLY was based on a totally uniform spread throughout the UK, also predicated that every individual in the current had an equal chance of meeting any other individual. Those are two major faults picked up by about a dozen eminent scientists when criticising.
But the more important point is that they modelled, beginning with a death rate of 0.1% and 0.01% (equal to seasonal flu or ten times LESS nasty than seasonal flu. Answer me this: "Is Coronavirus 10 times less deadly than seasonal flu?"
It is quite ridiculous to say so, is it not? So you have to start from a premise that it's equally deadly (silly) to "it's clearly a lot more deadly"
BTW the Oxford model predicted it could be the case that 68% of the population had had it unseen. 68%
Why then would the Government scientists have been considering going for herd immunity of 60%, when according to the Oxford study TWO WEEKS AGO we could already have been at 68%?
The Oxford Research is NOT properly published (You can read it via Drop-Box)
The Oxford Research has NOT been peer-reviewed (a standard before it gains legitimacy)
The Oxford Research has been panned by virtually every serious scientist in the field. It's easy to Google and see that.
Remember also that since the paper was first posted around March 22nd. The 36-68% would have markedly increased since then.
Here is a reasonably readable review of the research
https://reason.com/2020/03/25/half-of-u ... ord-model/
So yeah, IF you say only 1 in a 1,000 who contract Covid will need hospital care, then you get a 68% number.
And IF Covid was floating round FOR A MONTH prior to the first case being noted