So, coronavirus...

[Ymx]

250k vaccinated today in England.

Growing towards the 300k we need

[JM2K6]

The adorably crotchety old lady in the downstairs flat got hers today I assume - a special bus picked her up and dropped her off later.

My mum's due for hers tomorrow.

[Openside]

Apropos of nothing my my late fathers wife died in hospital today, I will be very interested what goes on the death certificate.

[Raggs]

Apropos of nothing my my late fathers wife died in hospital today, I will be very interested what goes on the death certificate.

Was she tested for coronavirus, or you're just hoping to be able to lower the charges to manslaughter?

[Openside]

Apropos of nothing my my late fathers wife died in hospital today, I will be very interested what goes on the death certificate.

Was she tested for coronavirus, or you're just hoping to be able to lower the charges to manslaughter?

[Enzedder]

Who had a virus for the human race death pool? - if this thing keeps mutating into worse variations, I will hit the panic button

A Brazilian nurse who recovered from Covid-19 but got reinfected with the nation's new variant has sparked major concerns the mutation could hamper the hope of immunity.

The variant has spooked UK officials into banning all flights from Brazil, with experts warning the mutation may be able to get past immunity developed from older versions of Covid-19.

The 45-year-old nurse became ill with the new variant in October, 5 months after she had recovered from an older Covid-19 strain.

Officials say her symptoms were worse the second time.

Researchers from the Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, a science institute in Rio de Janeiro, warned that mutations on the new variant could increase the risk of reinfection.

They wrote that "viral evolutions may favour reinfections", claiming recently spotted variants "have raised concern on their potential impact in infectivity and immune escape".

Amid growing fears about the Brazilian variant, the UK Government today banned all travellers from Portugal, South America, Panama and Cape Verde in a bid to stop it from wreaking havoc in Britain.

The UK's chief scientific adviser, Sir Patrick Vallance, admitted that "we don't know for sure" how the new variant will affect vaccines and immunity.

However, despite fears of reinfection, Vallance told ITV's Peston show there was no evidence any of the variants led to more severe disease or could get around the immune system.

He said: "There's no evidence at all with any of these variants that it makes the disease itself more severe.

"So the changes that we're seeing with the variants are largely around increased transmission.

"[There's] no evidence yet for the UK version that it makes a difference in terms of how the immune system recognises it, and if you've been exposed to the old variant or you've had a vaccine, it looks like that's going to work just as well with this new variant for the UK one.

"The South African one and Brazilian one, we don't know for sure. There's a bit more of a risk that this might make a change to the way the immune system recognises it but we don't know. Those experiments are under way."

The news comes after the New Zealand Government announced all travellers from the UK would have to test negative for Covid-19 before returning to New Zealand.

The new UK variant of the Covid-19 virus has reached New Zealand shores but remains contained in managed isolation.

However, experts say an outbreak of the new variant would mean further lockdowns.

A level 4 lockdown longer than that back in March would be needed to stamp out new strains of Covid-19 which had potential for "explosive exponential growth" if they entered the community, scientists say.

On Monday it was revealed there were already 19 cases of the United Kingdom strain detected in New Zealand since December 13 and one case of the South African variant.

Professor Michael Plank, of Te Pūnaha Matatini and University of Canterbury, said the new variant called B.1.1.7, which has exploded across the UK, and the similar variant found in South Africa, had "potential for explosive exponential growth".

"There is no evidence that either of these new variants causes more severe disease than the original.

"But, there is strong evidence that the B.1.1.7 variant spreads more easily from one person to another.

"This means that the number of new cases per infected person [the so-called R number] is 40-70 per cent higher than the original strain.

"This is a serious concern because of the potential for explosive exponential growth."

[tc27]

Total UK vaccinations now over 300k yesterday.

Very good news - glimmer of daylight starting to get clearer.

[Saint]

Total UK vaccinations now over 300k yesterday.

Very good news - glimmer of daylight starting to get clearer.

All about sustaining/improving that rate now

[Saint]

Total UK vaccinations now over 300k yesterday.

Very good news - glimmer of daylight starting to get clearer.

All about sustaining/improving that rate now

Numbers just published on gov.uk - around 12k short of the 300k mark. However, still ramping up and now that we'be cleared most of the really difficult cases and are moving more towards scale it's looking good - at this rate I could see us topping3 million per week by the end of the month

Genuinely good progress from this part of the response

[tc27]

Total UK vaccinations now over 300k yesterday.

Very good news - glimmer of daylight starting to get clearer.

All about sustaining/improving that rate now

Numbers just published on gov.uk - around 12k short of the 300k mark. However, still ramping up and now that we'be cleared most of the really difficult cases and are moving more towards scale it's looking good - at this rate I could see us topping3 million per week by the end of the month

Genuinely good progress from this part of the response

Ok looks like I heard wrong but confident 300k will be exceeded tomorrow.

[tc27]

SNP's Philipa Whitford banging the Scottish exceptionalism drum on QT.

Deaths per 10,000 are not significantly different between England and Scotland - only NI seems to be doing noticably better;

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

[Denny Crane]

Interesting read of a peer reviewed paper assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

[Raggs]

Interesting read of a peer reviewed paper assessing Mandatory Stay‐at‐Home and Business Closure Effects on the Spread of COVID‐19

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eci.13484

Not for you, since you won't read this, but for others.

"In summary, we fail to find strong evidence supporting a role for more restrictive NPIs in the control of COVID in early 2020."

Using SK and Sweden as evidence of it not being a requirement.

Big issue though for me, is their analysis is on number of cases, and as Trump said, if we test less we'll have less cases. This is the approach Sweden took in early 2020. You cannot meaningfully compare the data coming from Sweden, against those countries that were far more rigorous in their testing. Swedens death curve has virtually no relationship to their cases "curve". It's not reliable data for me.

South Korea didn't implement as strict measures on many businesses, but equally, they had far better track and trace (cctv tracking, credit card tracking, phone tracking etc etc), and their population reacted in a more appropriate way too. They do mention in the study that the societal reaction in SK was a significant factor in how effective just the normal interventions were.

They go on to say that decreases from the strict measurements, below 30%, cannot be excluded in some countries, larger decreases than that cannot be extracted for the data. But that's what those extra measures are looking for, that final decrease. Taking you from r=1.2 down to r=0.9 makes all the difference in terms of the pandemic, but is less than 30%, so wouldn't count for them.

So people in some areas reacted well enough to the not so extreme changes (Basically implemented a larger lockdown on themselves), and in others they didn't, and those serious lockdowns were in place didn't make 30% or greater differences, but 30% is a huge reduction in and of itself, especially after already bringing it down with previous interventions.

Sweden is a diabolical case study to use, when their testing regime clearly wasn't a true reflection of their infection status.

[JM2K6]

for some more discussion. A few commentators pointed out the very wide confidence intervals, and that the NPIs were not implemented at random - you can't divorce them from the number of cases & growth rate.

[SaintK]

I really don't understand this. Why on earth would the government make an announcement about mass lateral flow testing in schools when the MRHA hasn't authorised it?
Other than for PR or political gain as part of Johnson's "Operation Moonshot" it appears like another senseless move and a waste of nearly £100m

Boris Johnson’s plans to test millions of schoolchildren for coronavirus every week appear to be in disarray after the UK regulator refused to formally approve the daily testing of pupils in England.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) told the government on Tuesday it had not authorised the daily use of 30-minute tests due to concerns that they give people false reassurance if they test negative.
This could lead to pupils staying in school and potentially spreading the virus when they should be self-isolating.
The regulator’s decision undermines a key element of the government’s strategy to bring the pandemic under control – and is bound to raise fresh questions about the tests, and the safety of the schools that have been asked to use them.
Ministers have repeatedly said the use of daily Covid-19 tests is critical to keeping children in education because it means those who test negative can remain in classrooms, instead of whole year-groups having to self-isolate.

[JM2K6]

Raggs, I found these when looking for some expert opinion





It won't help our resident JustAskingQuestionsMan but I found them informative.

[Raggs]

Cheers JMK, glad to see that despite me being nearer to a layman on this than I was decades ago, I still managed to pick up on a few relevant bits of nonsense. Some very good points made in the twitter threads too.

[dpedin]

SNP's Philipa Whitford banging the Scottish exceptionalism drum on QT.

Deaths per 10,000 are not significantly different between England and Scotland - only NI seems to be doing noticably better;

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

Not going to get into the old arguments, I didnt see QT and can't comment about what was said, but need to disagree with your 'not significantly different' statement. Just looking at the numbers alone. I agree it's not a huge difference but it is significant. Depends on the measure you use (numbers are aprox - my arithmetic is dodgy) but comparing England and Scotland death measures:

- Scotland 29% less if using death within 28 days
- Scotland 10% less if using covid19 on death certificate
- Scotland 9% less if using total excess deaths

The reason I disagree with your statement is that 10% less deaths in England would be c7,500 deaths fewer, which in any country is pretty significant! In any business I have worked in 10% is a huge margin be it costs, inventory, price, etc. Is there a danger here that we have all just become immune to the numbers and forget what they represent?

[Torquemada 1420]

So, pretty much 1 year after the 1st CORONA case arrived in the UK, Boris's island decides it might be a good idea only to admit people with a -ve CORONA test.

You couldn't make up the levels of ineptitude.

[Sandstorm]

So, pretty much 1 year after the 1st CORONA case arrived in the UK, Boris's island decides it might be a good idea only to admit people with a -ve CORONA test.

You couldn't make up the levels of ineptitude.

Nothing pisses me off more about Covid (and that includes the pubs being closed) than the UK Govt's farcical border strategy. It's almost criminal!

[tc27]

SNP's Philipa Whitford banging the Scottish exceptionalism drum on QT.

Deaths per 10,000 are not significantly different between England and Scotland - only NI seems to be doing noticably better;

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

Not going to get into the old arguments, I didnt see QT and can't comment about what was said, but need to disagree with your 'not significantly different' statement. Just looking at the numbers alone. I agree it's not a huge difference but it is significant. Depends on the measure you use (numbers are aprox - my arithmetic is dodgy) but comparing England and Scotland death measures:

- Scotland 29% less if using death within 28 days
- Scotland 10% less if using covid19 on death certificate
- Scotland 9% less if using total excess deaths

The reason I disagree with your statement is that 10% less deaths in England would be c7,500 deaths fewer, which in any country is pretty significant! In any business I have worked in 10% is a huge margin be it costs, inventory, price, etc. Is there a danger here that we have all just become immune to the numbers and forget what they represent?

Ok accepting 10% might be significant I suppose the question is what's the driver behind it?

Stricter lock down and better messaging from the SG? Or something else?


Its interesting that the South West of England has a very similar population and a higher density than Scotland:

2011 stats

Population: 5,289,000
Density: 580/sq mi (220/km2)

Scotland:

Population: 5,313,600
Density: 67.5/km2 (174.8/sq mi)


Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by area

South West 4,354 77.4
Scotland 6,686 122.4

The public health response in the SW is the same as in the rest of England - its clearly something else thats' making the SW probably the 'best' performing region in England. And this factor(s) is probably the same driving the differences across the UK

[tc27]

So, pretty much 1 year after the 1st CORONA case arrived in the UK, Boris's island decides it might be a good idea only to admit people with a -ve CORONA test.

You couldn't make up the levels of ineptitude.

UK border policy is nuts I agree,

On the other hand at less we stand a chance of getting a significant % of the population vaccinated before next winter.

Also I heard 50% of the French population have responded to polls saying they wont get vaccinated...wtf?

[Sandstorm]

Also I heard 50% of the French population have responded to polls saying they wont get vaccinated...wtf?

Or maybe don't want the less effective French vaccine and want one of the foreign ones instead.

[laurent]

Also I heard 50% of the French population have responded to polls saying they wont get vaccinated...wtf?

Or maybe don't want the less effective French vaccine and want one of the foreign ones instead.

Clever ploy by the government here by keeping the vaccine scarce they have made it desirable

Sanofi vaccine is not ready anyway... (the french vaccine)

the Polls are turning

[dpedin]

SNP's Philipa Whitford banging the Scottish exceptionalism drum on QT.

Deaths per 10,000 are not significantly different between England and Scotland - only NI seems to be doing noticably better;

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/deaths

Not going to get into the old arguments, I didnt see QT and can't comment about what was said, but need to disagree with your 'not significantly different' statement. Just looking at the numbers alone. I agree it's not a huge difference but it is significant. Depends on the measure you use (numbers are aprox - my arithmetic is dodgy) but comparing England and Scotland death measures:

- Scotland 29% less if using death within 28 days
- Scotland 10% less if using covid19 on death certificate
- Scotland 9% less if using total excess deaths

The reason I disagree with your statement is that 10% less deaths in England would be c7,500 deaths fewer, which in any country is pretty significant! In any business I have worked in 10% is a huge margin be it costs, inventory, price, etc. Is there a danger here that we have all just become immune to the numbers and forget what they represent?

Ok accepting 10% might be significant I suppose the question is what's the driver behind it?

Stricter lock down and better messaging from the SG? Or something else?


Its interesting that the South West of England has a very similar population and a higher density than Scotland:

2011 stats

Population: 5,289,000
Density: 580/sq mi (220/km2)

Scotland:

Population: 5,313,600
Density: 67.5/km2 (174.8/sq mi)


Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by area

South West 4,354 77.4
Scotland 6,686 122.4

The public health response in the SW is the same as in the rest of England - its clearly something else thats' making the SW probably the 'best' performing region in England. And this factor(s) is probably the same driving the differences across the UK

Again don't want to go through this whole debate again but there was an article in Nature which looked at all the various variables i.e. pop, density, age, obesity etc and the research concluded that the major explanation for the variation in cases, deaths etc across a number of countries couldn't be attributed to pop density, obesity, etc but was down to the response and policies implemented by the various national Govs and how they were enforced. I posted the link to the article some time ago but will try and dig it out.

However we are heading down a rabbit hole again that we have been down many times before. We all have our own views and opinions. The only point I was making was the numbers didnt support your claim and that 10% difference in deaths is very significant given it represents 7,500 avoidable deaths.

[dpedin]

Also I heard 50% of the French population have responded to polls saying they wont get vaccinated...wtf?

Or maybe don't want the less effective French vaccine and want one of the foreign ones instead.

I suspect we in UK also have a large % of folk who will not take the vaccine, I met a mate of mine, partner in law firm and wife ex nurse, who said he wouldn't take the vaccine because he didnt trust the process and he would wait a year just to make sure it was safe! I'm sure I saw survey data that said 35-40% of folk in UK have said they wouldn't take the vaccine? Major worry if we need to reach minimum of 70% vaccination rates for herd immunity!

[dpedin]

Sobering article for all those who said let covid19 rip through the community to build herd immunity, just shield the vulnerable and get on with life, its only like a bad flu, it will slowly die away, etc. OK I appreciate that because it has been co authored by Devi Sridhar and some folk will dismiss it without reading it but for others it might make interesting reading?

https://science.sciencemag.org/content/ ... 30/tab-pdf

[Hal Jordan]

So, pretty much 1 year after the 1st CORONA case arrived in the UK, Boris's island decides it might be a good idea only to admit people with a -ve CORONA test.

You couldn't make up the levels of ineptitude.

Nothing pisses me off more about Covid (and that includes the pubs being closed) than the UK Govt's farcical border strategy. It's almost criminal!

Especially considering how keen they usually are to keep people out of the country.

[tc27]

Not going to get into the old arguments, I didnt see QT and can't comment about what was said, but need to disagree with your 'not significantly different' statement. Just looking at the numbers alone. I agree it's not a huge difference but it is significant. Depends on the measure you use (numbers are aprox - my arithmetic is dodgy) but comparing England and Scotland death measures:

- Scotland 29% less if using death within 28 days
- Scotland 10% less if using covid19 on death certificate
- Scotland 9% less if using total excess deaths

The reason I disagree with your statement is that 10% less deaths in England would be c7,500 deaths fewer, which in any country is pretty significant! In any business I have worked in 10% is a huge margin be it costs, inventory, price, etc. Is there a danger here that we have all just become immune to the numbers and forget what they represent?

Ok accepting 10% might be significant I suppose the question is what's the driver behind it?

Stricter lock down and better messaging from the SG? Or something else?


Its interesting that the South West of England has a very similar population and a higher density than Scotland:

2011 stats

Population: 5,289,000
Density: 580/sq mi (220/km2)

Scotland:

Population: 5,313,600
Density: 67.5/km2 (174.8/sq mi)


Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by area

South West 4,354 77.4
Scotland 6,686 122.4

The public health response in the SW is the same as in the rest of England - its clearly something else thats' making the SW probably the 'best' performing region in England. And this factor(s) is probably the same driving the differences across the UK

Again don't want to go through this whole debate again but there was an article in Nature which looked at all the various variables i.e. pop, density, age, obesity etc and the research concluded that the major explanation for the variation in cases, deaths etc across a number of countries couldn't be attributed to pop density, obesity, etc but was down to the response and policies implemented by the various national Govs and how they were enforced. I posted the link to the article some time ago but will try and dig it out.

However we are heading down a rabbit hole again that we have been down many times before. We all have our own views and opinions. The only point I was making was the numbers didnt support your claim and that 10% difference in deaths is very significant given it represents 7,500 avoidable deaths.

I come back to the fact that the South West has a death rate approx 50% less than the rest of England - Scotland has a death rate 10% less than England as a whole - I think its a bit absurd to argue the much smaller difference must be primarily driven by SG policy when that cant be true of SW England.

Also common sense suggests looking at the relatively minor differences in policy the devolved governments took it seems unlikely they had an effect. None of the devolved administrations put into place the measures that actually turned out to be effective until the last few weeks and days pretty much as the UK government put them into place (so it was clearly within their legislative competence to pre-empt that excuse.)

[tabascoboy]

Friend's very elderly mother has her jab late tomorrow evening - first one I know in our area. Reassuring to know it's underway at last here.

[Sandstorm]

Friend works for Royal Mail. He and everyone in his team of 6 have all just had a Track & Trace alert to "Go Home, Self-isolate now!". So they've packed up and left the depot.

Bit of an issue here, in that they are the team responsible for getting the letters going out from NHS Trusts to elderly patients telling them to go get their vaccines!

[tc27]

Friend's very elderly mother has her jab late tomorrow evening - first one I know in our area. Reassuring to know it's underway at last here.

There is ground for optimism that the mid February target will be hit - the Scottish government accidentally leaked a UK government analysis that 5 million a week will be possible very soon*

*Apparently the report was redacted because the UKG is worried other nations will released the UK's supply - happened with PPE last year.

[Slick]

Ok accepting 10% might be significant I suppose the question is what's the driver behind it?

Stricter lock down and better messaging from the SG? Or something else?


Its interesting that the South West of England has a very similar population and a higher density than Scotland:

2011 stats

Population: 5,289,000
Density: 580/sq mi (220/km2)

Scotland:

Population: 5,313,600
Density: 67.5/km2 (174.8/sq mi)


Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by area

South West 4,354 77.4
Scotland 6,686 122.4

The public health response in the SW is the same as in the rest of England - its clearly something else thats' making the SW probably the 'best' performing region in England. And this factor(s) is probably the same driving the differences across the UK

Again don't want to go through this whole debate again but there was an article in Nature which looked at all the various variables i.e. pop, density, age, obesity etc and the research concluded that the major explanation for the variation in cases, deaths etc across a number of countries couldn't be attributed to pop density, obesity, etc but was down to the response and policies implemented by the various national Govs and how they were enforced. I posted the link to the article some time ago but will try and dig it out.

However we are heading down a rabbit hole again that we have been down many times before. We all have our own views and opinions. The only point I was making was the numbers didnt support your claim and that 10% difference in deaths is very significant given it represents 7,500 avoidable deaths.

I come back to the fact that the South West has a death rate approx 50% less than the rest of England - Scotland has a death rate 10% less than England as a whole - I think its a bit absurd to argue the much smaller difference must be primarily driven by SG policy when that cant be true of SW England.

Also common sense suggests looking at the relatively minor differences in policy the devolved governments took it seems unlikely they had an effect. None of the devolved administrations put into place the measures that actually turned out to be effective until the last few weeks and days pretty much as the UK government put them into place (so it was clearly within their legislative competence to pre-empt that excuse.)

I'm afraid all you are going to get is SG great, UKG bad.

Anecdotal of course, but having spent a decent part of the last year in both England and Scotland, and speaking almost daily to friends and family in England, I do think the response from the Scottish public has been a lot better. My suspicion would be that there is a similar, more community minded, mindset in the SW.

[JM2K6]

I don't think you can directly compare the South West and Scotland. Scotland receives far more international travel, for a start. I would also suspect (but don't have the time to check) that the amount of tourism and other cross-country movement to Scotland far outweighs the same to the South West.

[Hal Jordan]

I don't think you can directly compare the South West and Scotland. Scotland receives far more international travel, for a start. I would also suspect (but don't have the time to check) that the amount of tourism and other cross-country movement to Scotland far outweighs the same to the South West.

Nonsense. I distinctly remember the hordes of Americans, Japanese and Chinese wandering around the Lost Gardens of Heligan the last time I was there.

[SaintK]

Friend works for Royal Mail. He and everyone in his team of 6 have all just had a Track & Trace alert to "Go Home, Self-isolate now!". So they've packed up and left the depot.

Bit of an issue here, in that they are the team responsible for getting the letters going out from NHS Trusts to elderly patients telling them to go get their vaccines!

Don't know where that is but in areas of London and parts of Essex and Kent there has been no mail delivered over the past two weeks or so

[Raggs]

I don't think you can directly compare the South West and Scotland. Scotland receives far more international travel, for a start. I would also suspect (but don't have the time to check) that the amount of tourism and other cross-country movement to Scotland far outweighs the same to the South West.

Just doing a quick check.

Scotland got 15.5m visitors in 2018, of which 3.5m came from overseas: https://www.scottish-enterprise.com/lea ... %20billion.

I cannot imagine they have much through traffic when compared to the likes of Heathrow for people travelling onto other destinations. Obviously Heathrow is not southwest though.

South west in 2014 (looking for more recent, but what I've seen so far suggest 2018 was a bumper year for the south west, improving over the previous), got 17.31m overnight visits (and 146m day visits). https://www.visitengland.com/sites/defa ... t_2014.pdf

Which suggests (can't see overseas visitors), that the South West gets more visits from within England, than Scotland, and likely, more from overseas as well. At the very least, I really don't think you can easily argue that they receive far more international travel.

[Sandstorm]

Friend works for Royal Mail. He and everyone in his team of 6 have all just had a Track & Trace alert to "Go Home, Self-isolate now!". So they've packed up and left the depot.

Bit of an issue here, in that they are the team responsible for getting the letters going out from NHS Trusts to elderly patients telling them to go get their vaccines!

Don't know where that is but in areas of London and parts of Essex and Kent there has been no mail delivered over the past two weeks or so

Hampshire (Basingstoke).

Our Posties are still healthy in West Berks.

[dpedin]

Ok accepting 10% might be significant I suppose the question is what's the driver behind it?

Stricter lock down and better messaging from the SG? Or something else?


Its interesting that the South West of England has a very similar population and a higher density than Scotland:

2011 stats

Population: 5,289,000
Density: 580/sq mi (220/km2)

Scotland:

Population: 5,313,600
Density: 67.5/km2 (174.8/sq mi)


Deaths with COVID-19 on the death certificate by area

South West 4,354 77.4
Scotland 6,686 122.4

The public health response in the SW is the same as in the rest of England - its clearly something else thats' making the SW probably the 'best' performing region in England. And this factor(s) is probably the same driving the differences across the UK

Again don't want to go through this whole debate again but there was an article in Nature which looked at all the various variables i.e. pop, density, age, obesity etc and the research concluded that the major explanation for the variation in cases, deaths etc across a number of countries couldn't be attributed to pop density, obesity, etc but was down to the response and policies implemented by the various national Govs and how they were enforced. I posted the link to the article some time ago but will try and dig it out.

However we are heading down a rabbit hole again that we have been down many times before. We all have our own views and opinions. The only point I was making was the numbers didnt support your claim and that 10% difference in deaths is very significant given it represents 7,500 avoidable deaths.

I come back to the fact that the South West has a death rate approx 50% less than the rest of England - Scotland has a death rate 10% less than England as a whole - I think its a bit absurd to argue the much smaller difference must be primarily driven by SG policy when that cant be true of SW England.

Also common sense suggests looking at the relatively minor differences in policy the devolved governments took it seems unlikely they had an effect. None of the devolved administrations put into place the measures that actually turned out to be effective until the last few weeks and days pretty much as the UK government put them into place (so it was clearly within their legislative competence to pre-empt that excuse.)

Thats not the point I was making - I said I wasn't going down that rabbit hole again. All I am trying to do is correct your assertions about the numbers not being significantly different - they are - and that you can use pop density as an explanation for lower death rates - you can't.

I was merely pointing out, as the research suggests, that the use of pop density as an explanation for different death rates is erroneous. The article I referred to looked closely at a range of factors to try and explain the different death rates and couldn't find any correlation between things like pop density, obesity, deprivation, etc in different countries and death rates and concluded that the differences could only be explained by different Gov reactions to the pandemic. I suppose an example of that might be Sweden and their performance when compared to their nordic neighbours?

[Sandstorm]

Arguing about the different Covid strategies between the 4 UK countries is stupid. There's barely a fag paper between them and they're all at the very bottom of a very deep pit of incompetence anyway.