The 500,000 versus 20,000 deaths studies we have been talking about recently in the thread both come from Imperial College studies conducted by Neil Ferguson. The 500,000 was based on "do nothing" while the 20,000 was based on intensive social distancing. The Oxford study was a completely different study with a different reasoning for 20,000 deaths (i.e. - the reason you mentioned).tadamsmar wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 8:15 pmThe 20,000 comes from this Oxford study:ebrasmus21 wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 7:06 pmDo these estimates really having any practical meaning at all? The experts we are all relying on, in the span of about 1 week, changed their numbers from 500,000 to less than 20,000. How are we supposed to rely on any of this information?Cash is King wrote: ↑Thu Mar 26, 2020 6:41 pmTo paraphrase, Dr. Birx said that the UK had reduced their prediction of deaths from 500,000 to under 20,000. She said the math behind the originally models were flawed to have such a drastic change. Again, I'm paraphrasing. I think it's worth listening to your comments today.
https://nypost.com/2020/03/24/coronavir ... tudy-says/
The idea is that there are many more UK infections than we think. This means that the proportion of fatalities is lower than we think, and that UK is close to herd immunity.
It should be easy to determine if about half the Brits have antibodies. You just have to sample 100 Brits to get an pretty good estimate. An antibody test was developed and used a month ago in Singapore and put on the market. But Brix seemed to be waiting for an easier test or something.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/c ... edictions/