SIR,

Normally statisticians historians and policy-makers have the posh of time to look at knowledge, decide its accuracy, and draw conclusions-something that at present they don’t have. Headline dying

figures file the tragic loss and struggling, however may be very deceptive as not each fatality is recorded the identical approach in a rustic, not to mention when evaluating international locations.

The UK consists of deaths in hospitals, care properties and at house. Belgium and France embody the primary two places however not the broader group and France admits its info on care properties is not

sturdy. Germany’s reporting lags behind different European nations. Many international locations nonetheless solely report hospital deaths.

Are we then unable to make any comparisons? No-we can, so long as we embody these caveats and related components: deaths per million, inhabitants density, age construction, single/multi-generation

households, ethnicity, prior well being situations, medical techniques’ effectiveness, maybe air pollution and even local weather (and there will probably be extra that I have not considered).

Even then we have to be cautious. ‘Arithmetic’ Inhabitants Density (space divided by inhabitants) is deceptive. Spain has an APD of 93 per sq. kilometre. However most of Spain is uninhabited. Its ‘Lived/Constructed-up’

Density (space truly occupied) is 737; adopted by Netherlands 546, England 531 (London 5,800: inner-city Newham 16,000), Italy 453, Germany 376, Poland 196, France 195, Eire 81 (solely Finland is decrease).

We should always have a look at the information, see how assured we’re in its accuracy, alter for this, embody all related components; after which attain a tentative conclusion. We should be frequently gathering

new-and hopefully extra correct, knowledge and revising our conclusions so we are able to have interaction in evidenced and reasoned debate.

Yours,

Francis Lankester