-
so either one or both of these bits of research are spectacularly wrong.
They're not mutually exclusive, both could still be correct. Neither necessarily contradicts the other.
For example, the 50% of the population that are suggested to be infected could be very heavily skewed towards the under 70s which would explain the current low number of deaths.
(Also, the death rate in the UK is doubling every 3 days. Since there were 57 deaths today then if that rate continues there will be ~1450 deaths in 14 days time, which would be from the currently infected group, and some ~6750 more will die between now and then. This is still a long way off 125,000 though.)
Greenbank-
I think that's a real stretch to assume a wicked skew for no apparent reason. Anyway, I tried plugging your numbers in including assuming that from the current 50% infected, there were still anothe 9k who unfortunately will die.
If you then need the remaining 240k deaths from the remaining 50% population, this means that the death rate will have to be 120x the current one if the herd immunity level is the government stated one of 60% (Only 40x if you choose 80% as the required herd immunity level, and 24x with no herd immunity)
Sifta
Its bugging me that these "respectable" institutions are falling over themselves to publish research in its infancy, and the news media is then running with it. Seems to me that a load of academics are seeing the chance to make a name for themselves, and grasping at it.
Imperial say "If left unfettered then 250,000 people could die"
Oxford say "It has been left unfettered and 50%+ have already had it"
If they were both anywhere near correct then, by now, we would have over 125,000 people either dead, or about to die. (Actually more, since the 250K equates to how many will have died once herd immunity kicks in, not 100% of the population getting it). That hasn't happened, so either one or both of these bits of research are spectacularly wrong.
No, but I bet they are praying that Oxford are correct, that's one of the main reasons that they are touting the antibody test as a game changer. and one where they are 100% right to not start shipping the test until they are 100% sure its accurate.
It should also be noted that they seem to be behaving as if Imperial is correct, which is erring on the side of caution. It also seems that they might have managed to ramp up capacity to somewhere near giving the NHS a chance to cope.