Coronavirus: Is the ‘Imperial College London’ report correct
We are proceeding with the lock-down due to this a report [LINK] ‘Imperial College London’.
However the question I would ask, is, have they concluded this report on the basis of everyone being a single group?
From what we are told we are in two groups (a) the healthy, and (b) the vulnerable.
It is presumed from what we are told that the group (a) healthy will get this virus and should expect very few deaths.
It is group (b) the vulnerable who we expect deaths from, and the BBC reported that most deaths in the UK have been from people with heath problems.
If the report groups everyone together, then the conclusion is based on deaths of all. And as such would conclude that you have a lock-down to not only protect the vulnerable but the healthy too.
I read the report quickly and could not see if they had based evidence of everybody, or took into account, that a large group (a) should get this virus and have no problems.
The problem I see in the UK is that we seem to be protecting the (a) group, who are healthy, and possibly have no need of protection (as the Sweden model seems to show so far), while at the same time, the (b) group (the vulnerable) seems to not be as protected as they should.
It is a bit like having a bad of apples and a few oranges and conclude that the contents of the bag are both green and orange as if they are one item, when in fact you have two different items.
The question is in this case, have we developed a strategy based on the presumption that the death rate will be the same for both healthy and non healthy, or separated the two groups. Because it is clear that the death rate for healthy people will be vastly lower than those who are vulnerable with health problems.