Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to Rhyd6,eyeball08,Wondergirly,bofh,johnstevens77, for Donating to support the site

Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6099
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 443 times
Been thanked: 2344 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329116

Postby dealtn » July 28th, 2020, 8:58 am

zico wrote:
dealtn wrote:
feder1 wrote:Yesterday,s cases predict 75 deaths in a fortnight.s time. Still too high a daily death rate since the 7 day moving average is stubbornly refusing to fall.


Purely out of interest does anyone know what the daily death rate for influenza would be in the UK at this time of year (in a "normal" year)?


It's in the latest ONS coronavirus report.
5-year average for "Deaths where pneumonia is mentioned" is around 1,400 per week (so 200 per day) over the last few weeks.
Currently 2020 average for a similar time period is around 1,000 per week (so about 30 per day fewer than normal).
Latest weekly ONS figures for Covid-19 registered deaths are 606,532,366 for last 3 weeks respectively.


So there are currently more deaths from "flu" than Covid, and Covid is currently killing fewer people than "flu" does in a normal year?

I understand that precautions might prevent some of these deaths but we don't do that in normal times in a normal year, yet now we are facing a situation with parts of the economy shut, large parts of the health and education systems closed to normal activity. I can't get my head round how this is deemed sensible. The only justification is to prevent the "second wave" potential, but that is at some cost it would appear.

Is there a reason why the flu vs comparison doesn't seem to be getting any media airtime? I doubt most people if asked would realise Covid is now a relatively small contributor to mortality tables.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8407
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4486 times
Been thanked: 3616 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329121

Postby servodude » July 28th, 2020, 9:07 am

dealtn wrote:Is there a reason why the flu vs comparison doesn't seem to be getting any media airtime?

It got loads at the start of the pandemic and it was debunked/dismissed and then the morgues filled up and then the trolls came out

-sd

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8407
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4486 times
Been thanked: 3616 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329129

Postby servodude » July 28th, 2020, 9:39 am

servodude wrote:
dealtn wrote:Is there a reason why the flu vs comparison doesn't seem to be getting any media airtime?

It got loads at the start of the pandemic and it was debunked/dismissed and then the morgues filled up and then the trolls came out

-sd


Crikey that sounds a lot less light hearted than I meant it to; I put that down to having just had a crown fitted :(

-sd

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7202
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1666 times
Been thanked: 3838 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329140

Postby Mike4 » July 28th, 2020, 10:10 am

dealtn wrote:Is there a reason why the flu vs comparison doesn't seem to be getting any media airtime? I doubt most people if asked would realise Covid is now a relatively small contributor to mortality tables.


Groundhog day once again...

The difference is 'flu doesn't randomly kill people in the prime of life, of cause those same people in their tens of thousands to need hospital treatment to survive and suffer long term sequelae afterwards.

The first example being the 32 year old fit and healthy male Chinese optician who first tried to alert the world to the problem, who was bullied into silence by the Chinese authorities. Shortly afterwards he caught the virus and it killed him.

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6099
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 443 times
Been thanked: 2344 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329145

Postby dealtn » July 28th, 2020, 10:34 am

Mike4 wrote:
dealtn wrote:Is there a reason why the flu vs comparison doesn't seem to be getting any media airtime? I doubt most people if asked would realise Covid is now a relatively small contributor to mortality tables.


Groundhog day once again...

The difference is 'flu doesn't randomly kill people in the prime of life, of cause those same people in their tens of thousands to need hospital treatment to survive and suffer long term sequelae afterwards.

The first example being the 32 year old fit and healthy male Chinese optician who first tried to alert the world to the problem, who was bullied into silence by the Chinese authorities. Shortly afterwards he caught the virus and it killed him.


Ok. But I am looking forward, not backwards.

And I don't think you are right. Flu does randomly kill people, who might also be in the prime of their life, but probably just as rarely and randomly as Covid.

My argument isn't that Covid is less dangerous than Flu, that is an entirely separate discussion. What I am saying is that in "normal" times we don't shut down the economy, and whole sections of the education and healthcare provision of the country to a disease that kills less than a hundred people a day.

It seems to me that is the situation we are now in (and no argument about shutting down and doing what was required to get to here) where we are doing just that, the media continues to focus almost exclusively on this health issue and ignore all others, to the extent we still get a "daily deaths from Covid" number read out on the prime time news. That death number continues to affect mainly a few "at risk" groups (as does Flu).

Of course there is the potential for things to reverse, and the death numbers to rise again. I think it would be interesting, and just as newsworthy, for the perspective on how relatively small this source of death has now become, by putting it alongside Flu, and perhaps other categories too. How would the average "man on the street", and the media that feeds him, get so wound up about "wearing masks", or not, in shops, for instance if it was reported that, for example, 60 died of Covid yesterday, and 100 died of Flu.

My suspicion is that the widely held belief would be that Covid is more dangerous, and deadly than Flu, when the numbers don't appear to back that up currently. It might of course be that society is still happy to adopt a mask wearing approach to all health, and that it will help in the prevention of Flu transmission too. But that hasn't been the case for the last few decades.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8407
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4486 times
Been thanked: 3616 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329150

Postby servodude » July 28th, 2020, 10:45 am

dealtn wrote:What I am saying is that in "normal" times we don't shut down the economy, and whole sections of the education and healthcare provision of the country to a disease that kills less than a hundred people a day.


What was the peak daily deaths in the UK?

It might be killing fewer than 100 per day at the moment; but it had/has a potential to do damage that is only beginning to be understood (deaths as well as permanent damage to survivors)

It's not normal times

If it turns out that there's no one left in the UK to succumb, because it's run its course and culled all it might, I am sure some will celebrate that failure.

-sd

dealtn
Lemon Half
Posts: 6099
Joined: November 21st, 2016, 4:26 pm
Has thanked: 443 times
Been thanked: 2344 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329156

Postby dealtn » July 28th, 2020, 10:57 am

servodude wrote:
dealtn wrote:What I am saying is that in "normal" times we don't shut down the economy, and whole sections of the education and healthcare provision of the country to a disease that kills less than a hundred people a day.


What was the peak daily deaths in the UK?

It might be killing fewer than 100 per day at the moment; but it had/has a potential to do damage that is only beginning to be understood (deaths as well as permanent damage to survivors)

It's not normal times

If it turns out that there's no one left in the UK to succumb, because it's run its course and culled all it might, I am sure some will celebrate that failure.

-sd


I'm not sure I understand your "celebrate" comment. If it continues to stay and kill 100-200 a day for the next 2 years, until a vaccine like the flu one is available, that is still not a great outcome. But if we continue as we are with a weakened economy, and large parts of the NHS shut down such as we get 100-200 extra deaths a day from cancer/suicides/others is that better? Worse? Cause for celebration?

What I am saying is interesting, and you may disagree of course, and something we rarely hear in the media, or see in "models", is the relative numbers of Covid deaths and infections, and recoveries. Of course at the peak when 1,000 were dying each day from a disease we knew little about, and frankly frightened so many of the country, it was appropriate for the absolute numbers to be announced and spoken about, and the accompanying tragic pictures. But that isn't where we are now is it, and I think many would be surprised to know about the "other" things that are killing us more, that we take for granted, and don't impart huge societal and economic damage on ourselves to live with.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329179

Postby johnhemming » July 28th, 2020, 12:40 pm

There are two pages to this. There are in my view some errors in this, but it does have a useful collation of sources that includes some information I have not seen before.
https://blog.argonautcapital.co.uk/arti ... -lockdown/

spasmodicus
Lemon Slice
Posts: 263
Joined: November 6th, 2016, 9:35 am
Has thanked: 65 times
Been thanked: 117 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329415

Postby spasmodicus » July 29th, 2020, 1:02 pm

dealtn wrote:
servodude wrote:
dealtn wrote:What I am saying is that in "normal" times we don't shut down the economy, and whole sections of the education and healthcare provision of the country to a disease that kills less than a hundred people a day.


What was the peak daily deaths in the UK?

It might be killing fewer than 100 per day at the moment; but it had/has a potential to do damage that is only beginning to be understood (deaths as well as permanent damage to survivors)

It's not normal times

If it turns out that there's no one left in the UK to succumb, because it's run its course and culled all it might, I am sure some will celebrate that failure.

-sd


I'm not sure I understand your "celebrate" comment. If it continues to stay and kill 100-200 a day for the next 2 years, until a vaccine like the flu one is available, that is still not a great outcome. But if we continue as we are with a weakened economy, and large parts of the NHS shut down such as we get 100-200 extra deaths a day from cancer/suicides/others is that better? Worse? Cause for celebration?

What I am saying is interesting, and you may disagree of course, and something we rarely hear in the media, or see in "models", is the relative numbers of Covid deaths and infections, and recoveries. Of course at the peak when 1,000 were dying each day from a disease we knew little about, and frankly frightened so many of the country, it was appropriate for the absolute numbers to be announced and spoken about, and the accompanying tragic pictures. But that isn't where we are now is it, and I think many would be surprised to know about the "other" things that are killing us more, that we take for granted, and don't impart huge societal and economic damage on ourselves to live with.


The recent revelation that obesity is associated with higher COVID19 death rates prompted me to look on the internet for obesity and death rate statistics by country, but it seems that the Independent got there first
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-obesity-death-rates-uk-global-who-a9612626.html

I was thinking to construct a scattergram, i.e. cross plot, of COVID19 death rate per million versus obesity as in, for example
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-obese-countries

However the death rate per million would have to be corrected for the degree to which a given population has been infected, i.e. number of those infected per million, which is of course one of the big unknowns in this pandemic.

The Independent article reports the somewhat startling conclusion "Overall those nations where more than 50 per cent of people are overweight carry an average death per 100,000 figure of 12.58 – compared to a rate of 1.14 in nations where fewer than 50 per cent are overweight" .

This suggests that when trying to work back from the number of COVID19 deaths to estimate the total number of people that might have been infected and consequent possibilities for herd immunity, the local obesity rate should be taken into consideration.

think thin,
S
(whose BMI is 21.5)

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2145
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1078 times
Been thanked: 1091 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329705

Postby zico » July 30th, 2020, 1:46 pm

Mike4 wrote:
The difference is 'flu doesn't randomly kill people in the prime of life, of cause those same people in their tens of thousands to need hospital treatment to survive and suffer long term sequelae afterwards.



The government statistics are for Influenza AND pneumonia (and I'd expect that pneumonia is by far the biggest component in this category). Influenza can kill people in the prime of life (as with Spanish flu) but pneumonia is much more an "end of life" disease. When people are bedridden or immobile for long periods, pneumonia often sets in and is the cause of death.

Edited 30/7/20 at 3pm to correctly attribute quote.

zico
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2145
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 12:12 pm
Has thanked: 1078 times
Been thanked: 1091 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329728

Postby zico » July 30th, 2020, 3:04 pm

ONS have published an excess deaths comparison between European countries (link at bottom of this post) which covers 2020 from Jan 1st up to 12th June (week 24) although most of the tables and comparison only relate to week 22 (29th May) because data isn't available for Czech Republic, Italy, Luxembourg and Slovakia after week 22. It's pretty clear that extending the analysis to week 24 makes England look even worse, because our excess deaths have stayed higher for longer.

England is the worst in Europe for excess death rates, followed by Spain, Scotland then Belgium.
Using figures up to week 22 shows that England's excess death rate is 13% higher than Spain's.
Using figures up to week 24 shows England 26% higher than Spain. (This isn't in the report, but I calculated it from the Excel files attached with the report).

Slightly surprisingly, the main focus of the report appears to be on peak deaths, and you need to get to Section 7 before seeing results for overall highest excess deaths. (Spain had the highest peak week of any country.)

Figure 3 is interesting, as it's an animated time-lapse map showing hot-spots in Europe, and shows clearly how Italy was able to contain Covid-19 in most of its regions.

ONS use 3 different measures of age-standardisation to more fairly compare different countries, but basically the principle to compare a country's average death rate over a 5-year period with its death rate in 2020. Basically measuring differences of each country to its normal death rates.
ONS also split down the figures to under-65s and over-65s.

These figures from Table 2 of the report show the %increase in mortality compared to the 5-year average.
Up to and including week 22, England is noticeably higher than any other country - almost twice as bad as Belgium, the 4th worst country.
(BBC initially headlined this report as "England among worse countries in Europe" - which is true in much the same way that Liverpool were among the highest points scorers in this season's Premiership contest, or Usain Blot was amongst the fastest sprinters in the 100m Olympics finals).

All 4 home nations are in the top 10, and from the 10th country downwards, they actually have negative excess deaths - which is what might be expected of countries that have successfully contained Covid-19 by measures which also reduced the potential for transmission of other infectious diseases as well, and promoting better hygiene practices.

Up to week 22 (29th May)

1. England 7.55%
2 Spain 6.65
3 Scotland 5.11
4 Belgium 3.89
5 Wales 2.78
6 Sweden 2.26
7 Netherlands 2.21
8 Northern Ireland 2.03
9 France 0.16
10 Iceland -0.38

Up to week 24 (12th June) - not in the report, but taken from the attached Excel tables) (excludes Italy, Czech, Slovakia, Luxembourg).

1. England 7.61%
2. Spain 6.00%
3- are similar to week 22.


Interesting graphs in Figure 5a, which show U-65 and 65+ death rates by country.
For over-65s, England excess death rate is similar to Spain's.
However, for under-65s, England's excess death rate is around 5% which is way higher than the next highest (Spain) at 2%.
Outside the UK and Spain, excess death rates for U-65 year olds were actually negative.

As far as cities go, Madrid has suffered most. Its over-65 excess death rate was twice as high as London, although its under-65 death rate was similar to London's. London is unusual because the excess death rates for under-65s and over-65s is almost identical.
Stockholm's excess death rate for over-65s is also quite bad, but under-65s appear to have got away very lightly with Sweden's "go-out-but-be-careful" non-lockdown policy.


ONS's statistician's comment from the report

"Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the first half of 2020 saw extraordinary increases in mortality rates across countries in Western Europe above the 2015 to 2019 average.

“The highest peak excess mortality at national level was in Spain, with some local areas in Northern Italy and Central Spain having excess mortality levels as high as 847.7% of the average.

“While none of the four UK nations had a peak mortality level as high as Spain or the worst-hit local areas of Spain and Italy, excess mortality was geographically widespread throughout the UK during the pandemic, whereas it was more geographically localised in most countries of Western Europe.

“Combined with the relatively slow downward ‘tail’ of the pandemic in the UK, this meant that by the end of May, England had seen the highest overall relative excess mortality out of all the European countries compared.”



https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulation ... tojune2020

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8407
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4486 times
Been thanked: 3616 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329867

Postby servodude » July 31st, 2020, 1:28 am

zico wrote:ONS have published an excess deaths comparison between European countries


Dr. John Campbell covers this in his most recent video on youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4otDdciULY

- sd

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6624
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 977 times
Been thanked: 2329 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329885

Postby Nimrod103 » July 31st, 2020, 8:15 am

zico wrote:For over-65s, England excess death rate is similar to Spain's.
However, for under-65s, England's excess death rate is around 5% which is way higher than the next highest (Spain) at 2%.
Outside the UK and Spain, excess death rates for U-65 year olds were actually negative.


I assume the English high excess death rate among the under 65s is due to the BAME effect, with the high immigrant numbers in the England? An early statistic I remember was that, of 36 doctors died of Covid19, 35 were BAME. I'm not sure how those numbers look now.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8407
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4486 times
Been thanked: 3616 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329890

Postby servodude » July 31st, 2020, 8:34 am

Nimrod103 wrote:
zico wrote:For over-65s, England excess death rate is similar to Spain's.
However, for under-65s, England's excess death rate is around 5% which is way higher than the next highest (Spain) at 2%.
Outside the UK and Spain, excess death rates for U-65 year olds were actually negative.


I assume the English high excess death rate among the under 65s is due to the BAME effect, with the high immigrant numbers in the England? An early statistic I remember was that, of 36 doctors died of Covid19, 35 were BAME. I'm not sure how those numbers look now.


I'm certainly sure that perception might be driving some of the suggestions I've been reading for dealing with it
- people seem quite willing to selflessly sacrifice "others" on the altar of their convenience

I do think it's likely that the English perception of a surplus of immigrants is what's driving that perception though; they've done a lot worse relatively thus far than places which are full of "foreigners" (or BAME if you prefer)

-sd

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7202
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1666 times
Been thanked: 3838 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329903

Postby Mike4 » July 31st, 2020, 9:49 am

Nimrod103 wrote:
zico wrote:For over-65s, England excess death rate is similar to Spain's.
However, for under-65s, England's excess death rate is around 5% which is way higher than the next highest (Spain) at 2%.
Outside the UK and Spain, excess death rates for U-65 year olds were actually negative.


I assume the English high excess death rate among the under 65s is due to the BAME effect, with the high immigrant numbers in the England? An early statistic I remember was that, of 36 doctors died of Covid19, 35 were BAME. I'm not sure how those numbers look now.


I don't think our BAME (dislike that term) population is that large in UK. I think I heard 13% mentioned on the radio recently.

Nimrod103
Lemon Half
Posts: 6624
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:10 pm
Has thanked: 977 times
Been thanked: 2329 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329908

Postby Nimrod103 » July 31st, 2020, 10:24 am

Mike4 wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:
zico wrote:For over-65s, England excess death rate is similar to Spain's.
However, for under-65s, England's excess death rate is around 5% which is way higher than the next highest (Spain) at 2%.
Outside the UK and Spain, excess death rates for U-65 year olds were actually negative.


I assume the English high excess death rate among the under 65s is due to the BAME effect, with the high immigrant numbers in the England? An early statistic I remember was that, of 36 doctors died of Covid19, 35 were BAME. I'm not sure how those numbers look now.


I don't think our BAME (dislike that term) population is that large in UK. I think I heard 13% mentioned on the radio recently.


True but we know that urban areas of the UK have been much more hard hit, and those are the areas of high BAME population. The non white/British population of London is 55% according to Google.
The West Country is mostly white, and has had hardly any cases of Covid19.

Mike4
Lemon Half
Posts: 7202
Joined: November 24th, 2016, 3:29 am
Has thanked: 1666 times
Been thanked: 3838 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329914

Postby Mike4 » July 31st, 2020, 10:52 am

Nimrod103 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:
I assume the English high excess death rate among the under 65s is due to the BAME effect, with the high immigrant numbers in the England? An early statistic I remember was that, of 36 doctors died of Covid19, 35 were BAME. I'm not sure how those numbers look now.


I don't think our BAME (dislike that term) population is that large in UK. I think I heard 13% mentioned on the radio recently.


True but we know that urban areas of the UK have been much more hard hit, and those are the areas of high BAME population. The non white/British population of London is 55% according to Google.
The West Country is mostly white, and has had hardly any cases of Covid19.

Yes I see what you mean. So are the 'case' figures broken down by ethnicity or is it just the deaths? Or even the deaths?

I heard on the radio a couple of days ago a budget of £4m has been granted to six research projects each tasked with finding out the reason(s) for the higher BAME fatality rate, but I never notice any hard stats being cited.

But £4m!!!!! Doctor John Campbell will tell them the answer for nothing - vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D is essential for regulating the immune system and is made in the skin, proportionally from sunlight exposure. Dark skins make less of it so people with dark skins moving to temperate climates tend to develop vitamin D deficiency. People admitted to hospital with COVID also tend to have vitamin D deficiency. Dr John is convinced D deficiency is the beginning and end of it, and so easily fixed by taking D supplements.

The trouble is, political correctness in people investigating the higher BAME death rate makes them ignore the effect of skin colour. Too uncomfortable to report skin colour as the direct reason for susceptibility to COVID so they go off looking for social reasons, apparently.

johnhemming
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 3858
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:13 pm
Has thanked: 9 times
Been thanked: 609 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329915

Postby johnhemming » July 31st, 2020, 10:56 am

I don't think vitamin D is the only issue. Different ethnic groups have different quantities of cells with ACE2 receptors and hence are more or less susceptible to Covid-19.

supremetwo
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1007
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 2:20 am
Has thanked: 130 times
Been thanked: 196 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329951

Postby supremetwo » July 31st, 2020, 1:12 pm

Mike4 wrote:
Nimrod103 wrote:
Mike4 wrote:
I don't think our BAME (dislike that term) population is that large in UK. I think I heard 13% mentioned on the radio recently.


True but we know that urban areas of the UK have been much more hard hit, and those are the areas of high BAME population. The non white/British population of London is 55% according to Google.
The West Country is mostly white, and has had hardly any cases of Covid19.

Yes I see what you mean. So are the 'case' figures broken down by ethnicity or is it just the deaths? Or even the deaths?

I heard on the radio a couple of days ago a budget of £4m has been granted to six research projects each tasked with finding out the reason(s) for the higher BAME fatality rate, but I never notice any hard stats being cited.

But £4m!!!!! Doctor John Campbell will tell them the answer for nothing - vitamin D deficiency. Vitamin D is essential for regulating the immune system and is made in the skin, proportionally from sunlight exposure. Dark skins make less of it so people with dark skins moving to temperate climates tend to develop vitamin D deficiency. People admitted to hospital with COVID also tend to have vitamin D deficiency. Dr John is convinced D deficiency is the beginning and end of it, and so easily fixed by taking D supplements.

The trouble is, political correctness in people investigating the higher BAME death rate makes them ignore the effect of skin colour. Too uncomfortable to report skin colour as the direct reason for susceptibility to COVID so they go off looking for social reasons, apparently.

There is also the aspect that there are a high proportion of doctors and qualified NHS staff (and opticians and care home owners) who are of Asian origin compare to their percentage of the UK population.

The families encourage their children to study for health qualifications because NHS jobs are secure and very well paid and pensioned.

The same applies to University posts (although to a lesser extent) and Asian professors will be more than willing to encourage and receive even more Government funds to expand their roles.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8407
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4486 times
Been thanked: 3616 times

Re: Coronavirus - Modelling Aspects Only

#329952

Postby servodude » July 31st, 2020, 1:14 pm

Has anyone found a study that can explain why white middle class middle aged men in the UK who live in single generation households and were in a position to isolate comfortably are so under represented in the death figures?

-sd


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests