Remember there are always different ways to get to the same end result, Sweden for example has totally ignored Imperial College London modelling, who we are relying on for our information and strategy.
Their R number is the same as our, but without such a big economic impact, but the truth is we won’t really know until all the numbers have been crunched.
They think they could have herd immunity by May, again who knows... all we know is nobody really knows anything for sure!!!!
I think it's common knowledge that despite Sweden not
imposing a similar Lockdown, nevertheless many Swedes were observing tight personal protocols without having to be compelled to do so.
They already had lots of people WFH already in any case, and then more joined them.
They're not an international flight hub like we are, they don't have a 'London' like we do, with a huge, tightly-packed public transport system.
They don't have nearly as many people going there as a destination like we do.
Many, many differences between us, and the above are just a few I could immediately think of.
This is why the modelling would be quite different for various countries, and you can't easily compare one with another.
And yes, you're right about all the number-crunching and comparisons being made later, until then we cannot know the full picture.
But despite all the above points I make above which are
fact, not conjecture, I would argue that if we had had lesser restrictions than we did, our death toll would be even higher than it is. No, even that isn't a simple fact, but I think it's highly likely.
