The ‘true’ NRS coronavirus-related death in Scotland rate from coronavirus is just under half that, per capita, of NHS-only rate in England. The emerging ‘truer’ figures for England and Wales, from the ONS, are revealing that the rate may be double the Government statistics there so it may be four times higher than in Scotland.
Remember the Scottish Government has been using the Scottish equivalent to the ONS figures, from the NRS, for a week now to get a truer picture:
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/covid19stats
Now figures have emerged from the Centre for Cities think-tank. Paul Swinney [No relation?], Director, is the source for this extract from Sky News:
‘The Centre for Cities analysis also looked at the impact the Covid-19 lockdown rules on cities throughout the UK, and this has shown that all the main Scottish cities have seen larger behaviour changes when compared with similar sized counterparts south of the border. Only London has seen a greater reduction in city centre worker activity than Glasgow as a response to the Covid-19 outbreak. “Aberdeen, Dundee and Edinburgh saw drop offs greater than for similar sized cities south of the border,” said Swinney, adding that even at weekends the effect is marked.’
Of course, many factors will be part of this difference in death rates. The quality and cleanliness of our hospitals, the level of staffing and the resources put in place quickly by NHS Scotland and the Scottish Government, and so on, but it seems reasonable to pat ourselves on the back for taking the social distancing rules so seriously.
Talking-up Scotland / Scottish media fact checking is like shooting fish in a barrel 
Sources for paragraph 1 and the Sky TV News extract:
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/04/14/coronavirus-excess-deaths-are-likely-to-be-more-than-double-the-government-reported-numbers/
https://sky-news.co.uk/scottish-cities-see-much-larger-covid-19-lock-down-response
WordPress playing silly beggars!
LikeLike
My wife first reaction to this: ‘it’s because we’ve got big Nic telling us what to do and the young ones respect her’
I added – ‘and of course the 50% of us that will vote SNP will be largely respectful too’ ( ms wife not a big believer)
Perhaps Jane Godley had a part too!
A nice story for the morning. Thanks!
LikeLiked by 2 people
WordPress silly buggers extends to ONLY saving my incorrect email address and lot letting me change it *grumble*
LikeLiked by 1 person
We Scots and Celts have a genetic disposition to look over the fence and say AYE RIGHT
Such has greatly helped us big time in the fight with this evolutionary genius of this virus
And without doubt despite her hands tied behind her back Nicola and her stalwart foot soldiers have proven so far more adept than the efforts of Boris and his Dads army of not fit for purpose government
I fear terribly the charlatans and their imbecile cohorts are hell bent on ending lock down prematurely which WILL only result in a second wave ,which will result in economic melt down all the way to bankruptcy and becoming a pariah state geo politically
In the long lasting aftermath little do the Unionist forces realise they will have burnt one of their aces with regards their infant Border argument in the next Indy ref.
For by God we shall NEED a border in order to shield ourselves from their despicable greed driven follies
Enough is Enough and the day cannot come soon enough
LikeLiked by 3 people
The first person I would pat on the back is Nicola Sturgeon , for goodness sake , even my No voting neighbours will be voting SNP at the next elections . It is not just now she has stepped up to the plate , it the way she kept our health service ahead of the UK over the years that has helped us , and yes , the Scots deserve a pat on the back because they trust her and have listened to her .
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pats on the back are due but more needed. The benefits of testing, even with bad kit, should not be overlooked.
https://paulromer.net/
“How much difference does it make if the test used to send people into quarantine is bad? Not as much as you might think.
The simulated data here contrast policies that isolate people who test positive using four different assumptions about the quality of the test. Even a very bad test cuts the fraction of the population who are ultimately infected almost in half. And when I say bad, I mean bad – an 80% false negative rate, which means that 4 out of 5 of people who are truly infectious will get a negative test result – i.e. a result saying that they are not infectious.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks
Very interesting
Shared
LikeLike
And each of these 4 people who have been given a false negative result will the go on to infect another 4-6 people.
Paul Romer is an economist. He may know numbers but little if anything about scientific testing. A bad test is a bad test and should never be used. If you are putting a lot of effort into testing then you want the effort to be rewarded by reliable results that help to save lives. Otherwise it is a pointless, cosmetic exercise that gives a completely false, and thus dangerous, sense of security.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The point is not that bad tests should be used. The point is that one correct test, even if others are inaccurate, has a much better result in reducing infection spread than no test
LikeLike
Two tweets about the importance of testing.
Anthony Costello
@globalhlthtwit
· Apr 13
US, UK v S. Korea. All had first cases in late Jan, and first deaths in late Feb/early Mar. Why? Korea moved at speed, tested and traced contacts, monitored quarantine and shut the epidemic down. Why did UK stop community surveillance + testing on March 12, when only 10 deaths?
Cheng
@KKCheng4
·
Apr 13
They thought it’s too challenging to contact trace. As a result we ended up in a far more expensive lockdown. It’s important that we build capacity for large scale contact tracing & proper isolation NOW to prepare for exit from lockdown.
@fgodlee
@davidshukmanbbc
@globalhlthtwit
LikeLike