The UK response to Covid-19 [MOD WARNING 1ST POST]

Dave0301

I have probably just missed it, but the DHSC haven't confirmed deaths and new cases today?

Can't see anything on Worldometer either. Anyone have any numbers for today?

A Dub in Glasgo

The UK govt have not announced it yet for some reason

The England hospital deaths were 35 according to this tweet

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1278684911193468928

Dave0301

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

The UK govt have not announced it yet for some reason

The England hospital deaths were 35 according to this tweet

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1278684911193468928

Just odd, as it has been delayed before but they say it will be announced later.

Dave0301

Dave0301 wrote: »

Just odd, as it has been delayed before but they say it will be announced later.

There is a new site, launched yesterday I think, with some new data sources. It wasn’t updated until 10pm last night, so maybe it’s a new data publication cycle

https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/

Dave0301

Deleted User wrote: »

There is a new site, launched yesterday I think, with some new data sources. It wasn’t updated until 10pm last night, so maybe it’s a new data publication cycle

https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/

Thanks. From that site:

From today, numbers of cases will include those identified by testing in all settings (pillars 1 and 2). We are working to make the data available as soon as possible.

Might explain the delay...

A Dub in Glasgo

https://twitter.com/RP131/status/1278787356028547074

First double digit weekday number since the start of all this.

lainey_d_123

IMO it's still far too high to be opening pubs and restaurants.

Most other countries are down to double digit cases before that happens. We're only just getting down to double digit deaths.

Is anyone planning to head out this weekend? I'm definitely not. Got some decent wine in and planning to catch up on some Netflix stuff and coding projects, and give it 2-3 weeks to see what the numbers are like then, and let pubs and restaurants iron out the kinks. I'd absolutely love a cold pint or a restaurant meal, but it just doesn't feel safe yet. Will be watching closely...might take a walk up my local high street and have a look into places and how they're operating, and get a feel for where I might feel safe going.

S.M.B.

I'm not in any mad rush to get to the pub, especially if the weather allows for outdoor socialising.

I do like the idea of pre booking a table in a pub and getting table service. Wouldn't be worst way to spend an upcoming Saturday afternoon.

I'd love to live near some pub with an oversized beer garden with more than enough space to match demand in a sunny day.

theological

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

IMO it's still far too high to be opening pubs and restaurants.

Most other countries are down to double digit cases before that happens. We're only just getting down to double digit deaths.

Is anyone planning to head out this weekend? I'm definitely not. Got some decent wine in and planning to catch up on some Netflix stuff and coding projects, and give it 2-3 weeks to see what the numbers are like then, and let pubs and restaurants iron out the kinks. I'd absolutely love a cold pint or a restaurant meal, but it just doesn't feel safe yet. Will be watching closely...might take a walk up my local high street and have a look into places and how they're operating, and get a feel for where I might feel safe going.

There is a point where the opinion in bold has to become something that you decide to mitigate for yourself.

For the record, like you and SMB, I've decided to hold off going to the pub or going to the restaurant for now, but at some stage that becomes a decision for me, rather than a demand that it be applied to everyone else. Liberty of choice has to return slowly at some stage.

I've been out insofar as I've gone to visit people, but I'm quite happy to hold off on shops, pubs and restaurants. I reckon a large portion of the public at large are of the same opinion.

There is only so long that peoples livelihoods should be stalled also. It is fine to say that everything should remain shut if your job isn't affected by it.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

There is a point where the opinion in bold has to become something that you decide to mitigate for yourself.

For the record, like you and SMB, I've decided to hold off going to the pub or going to the restaurant for now, but at some stage that becomes a decision for me, rather than a demand that it be applied to everyone else. Liberty of choice has to return slowly at some stage.

The weakness in this approach is that "every man for himself", so to speak, is not an effective principle on which to build a strategy for responding to a pandemic. Pandemics require, first and last, a collective response. And individualist, rights-focussed, choice-focused culture may have other strengths, but it is singularly weak at responding to a pandemic. (Which I believe is a large part of the problem they are having in the US. But that's maybe for another thread.)

Obviously, the choice to not go to pubs and restaurants prevents you from contracting CV19 in a pub or restaurant. But it doesn't prevent you from contracting CV19 from someone who contracted it in a pub or restaurant. Thus someone's decision to go to pubs and restaurants creates a risk which is only partly born by them. Part of it, they are imposing on you.

So the narrative which presents this as a "personal choice" is a false one. This isnt' a personal choice; this is a choice about whether you will expose other people to an increased risk of infection.

And while you, Theological, are to be commended for your choice not to expose others to that risk, your hypothetical evil twin brother Theoamathaeic might make the opposite choice, either because he doesn't care about the welfare of others or because he doesn't realise or doesn't accept that his choice has this consequence for others.

So we have to take a step aback and ask ourselves, at a societal level, whether you and Theoamathaeic (and everyone else) should have the right to decide to impose this risk on others.

There isn't a one-word answer to this question. Obviously, if you couldn't do anything that might pose any risk to others, then you could basically do nothing at all. That would be an unconscionable restriction on you. Equally obviously, if you could do anything you pleased regardless of the consequences for others, that would be an unconscionable imposition on them. So some kind of balance between your freedom and their welfare is called for. Which is not easy.

But we have to start by recognising that that balancing exercise is what we are doing. And the language of personal choice, decision for me, liberty of choice, something you decide to mitigate for yourself, doesn't bring that out. On the contrary, it obscures it, by emphasising the positive aspects of you having a choice, and failing to acknowledge or attach any weight to the consequences your choice will have for others, or even to acknowledge that it has real consequences for others.

The argument that you should be allowed to do X needs to be backed up with an argument that that the risk to others that you doing X will create is a risk that you should have the right to impose on them.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

The weakness in this approach is that "every man for himself", so to speak, is not an effective principle on which to build a strategy for responding to a pandemic. Pandemics require, first and last, a collective response. And individualist, rights-focussed, choice-focused culture may have other strengths, but it is singularly weak at responding to a pandemic. (Which I believe is a large part of the problem they are having in the US. But that's maybe for another thread.)

The owners of the pubs should be implementing the government guidance to ensure social distancing and other measures to ensure that the virus doesn't spread. The punters who are going to the pub need to do so sensibly and in line with the current guidance. That's the collective response to the issue from July 4th.

As for whether or not people want to go beyond this guidance and stay away entirely is a matter for them personally. It is a response that I have planned to take as have many others. I suspect a lot of people will be staying away.

Other countries have also taken this step forward, including France for example.

Peregrinus wrote: »

Obviously, the choice to not go to pubs and restaurants prevents you from contracting CV19 in a pub or restaurant. But it doesn't prevent you from contracting CV19 from someone who contracted it in a pub or restaurant. Thus someone decision to go to pubs and restaurants creates a risk which is only partly born by them. Part of it, they are imposing on you.

Sure. This is why people should be considering who they are in contact with for the duration of this pandemic. Following the other COVID-19 guidance by implementing social distancing and meeting outdoors should reduce the risk of spread.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So the narrative which presents this as a "personal choice" is a false one. This isnt' a personal choice; this is a choice about whether you will expose other people to an increased risk of infection.

The point I've made above answers this.

Peregrinus wrote: »

And while you, Theo, are to be commended for your choice not to expose others to that risk, your hypothetical evil twin brother Theoamathaeic might make the opposite choice, either because he doesn't care about the welfare of others or because he doesn't realise or doesn't accept that his choice has this consequence for others.

If my fictional brother goes to the pub sensibly from July 4th I don't see the problem with this provided that social distancing is maintained.

Peregrinus wrote: »

So we have to take a step aback and ask ourselves, at a societal level, whether you and Theoamathaeic (and everyone else) should have the right to decide to impose this risk on others.

It is the same with anything though. For example, going to the supermarket and then meeting a friend could theoretically be a risk. Providing I take the correct precautions in the supermarket - trying to keep 2m apart, and wearing a mask for the brief intervals where I cannot, and ensuring that I keep 2m apart when I meet my friend, the risk will be significantly lower of transmitting this to others.

Peregrinus wrote: »

But we have to start by recognising that that balancing exercise is what we are doing. And the language of personal choice, decision for me, liberty of choice, something you decide to mitigate for yourself, doesn't bring that out. On the contrary, it obscures it, by emphasising the positive aspects of you having a choice, and failing to acknowledge or attach any weight to the consequences your choice will have for others.

The argument that you should be allowed to do X needs to be backed up with an argument that that the risk to others that you doing X will create is a risk that you should have the right to impose on them.

My point was that eventually liberty of choice has to return and that people will have to use that liberty of choice to determine their risk appetite. Determining not to meet anyone physically who has been in a pub may be a genuine choice for people.

This aspect of people taking responsibility for their own actions instead of the government blanket banning everything is probably the right approach going forward with the exception of localised lockdowns.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

. . . My point was that eventually liberty of choice has to return and that people will have to use that liberty of choice to determine their risk appetite. Determining not to meet anyone physically who has been in a pub may be a genuine choice for people.

Although not a very realistic one, for how am I to know whether someone else has been in a pub?

But the real issue is this: it's one thing to say that there must come a point where we restore greater freedom of choice to people. That is true, but trivial. The real question is, why is 4 July that point, in relation to this freedom? The fact that there must come a point where X happens doesn't mean that the point where X happens has, in fact, come.

You make the point that this particular freedom is already available in France, but that doesn't mean very much. France did not restore this freedom until it had made rather more progress in reducing the spread of CV19 than the UK has yet made so, if it has any relevance at all - and it may not - an appeal to the French experience might suggest that the UK is premature in relaxing this particular measure.

theological

According to the data I can see France had more new cases (659) reported of the virus yesterday than Britain did (576).

Transmission of the virus has been reduced significantly in the UK. From the KCL data which I regard as being more accurate, the UK's transmission has plummeted from nearly 5,000 daily cases at the start of last month, to 1,400 daily cases now.

It is this reduction in transmission that has led the government to conclude that re-starting the economy slowly and conservatively is the right thing to do. The approach has shifted from national measures, to localised ones, which I also think is the right thing to do.

A Dub in Glasgo

I won't be going to the pub or restaurant tomorrow because, in Scotland, they will still be shut. The Scottish Government decided to get the infection numbers low before opening to that extent - due to open with mitigation measures next Friday

The decision by the Tories to open on 4th July and call it independece day for the people in England is very reckless is my view

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

According to the data I can see France had more new cases (659) reported of the virus yesterday than Britain did (576).

Transmission of the virus has been reduced significantly in the UK. From the KCL data which I regard as being more accurate, the UK's transmission has plummeted from nearly 5,000 daily cases at the start of last month, to 1,400 daily cases now.

It is this reduction in transmission that has led the government to conclude that re-starting the economy slowly and conservatively is the right thing to do. The approach has shifted from national measures, to localised ones, which I also think is the right thing to do.

But, at the risk of labouring the point, why is 1,400 daily cases the right point at which to make this change. If the rate were 1.600, would you be making the case that 1,600 was the right point? Or if it were 1,200?

I think there's a fundamental weakness in the reasoning here. It's the measures now in place that have reduced the daily case rate from 5,000 to 1.400. That's hardly an argument for dismantling the measures. Over the years the permitted blood/alcohol concentration in Ireland has been reduced from 125mg/100ml to 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml to 20mg/ml for specified drivers. This has been associated with a progressive fall in the rate of drink-driving accidents. Do we conclude from this that we can therefore start to lift the permitted blood/alcohol rate again? We do not. So why would we think that relaxing the policies that have proved relatively successful in reducing the spread of CV19 would be a good idea? I think it needs a more rational justification than this.

theological

Peregrinus wrote: »

But, at the risk of labouring the point, why is 1,400 daily cases the right point at which to make this change. If the rate were 1.600, would you be making the case that 1,600 was the right point? Or if it were 1,200?

I think there's a fundamental weakness in the reasoning here. It's the measures now in place that have reduced the daily case rate from 5,000 to 1.400. That's hardly an argument for dismantling the measures. Over the years the permitted blood/alcohol concentration in Ireland has been reduced from 125mg/100ml to 80mg/100ml to 50mg/100ml to 20mg/ml for specified drivers. This has been associated with a progressive fall in the rate of drink-driving accidents. Do we conclude from this that we can therefore start to lift the permitted blood/alcohol rate again? We do not. So why would we think that relaxing the policies that have proved relatively successful in reducing the spread of CV19 would be a good idea? I think it needs a more rational justification than this.

The incidence of the virus has reduced to a point where it is less prevalent in the population. That makes the risk of transmission lower because fewer people have the virus. The mitigation measures are in place to reduce that further. Given that this has reduced, it is important for people to get back to work if possible with COVID-secure guidelines in place.

It is a trade off and it is additional risk, but it is risk that can be mitigated, and people can make decisions to mitigate risk further.

As for your point about not knowing if your friends have been to the pub. I don't know about you, but my friends are pretty trustworthy. I get a pretty clear idea of who they have been with over the last few weeks, and therefore I know who I have been exposed to indirectly. I'm pretty sure they would be honest with me if they had been to the pub. Notwithstanding keeping distance reduces the risk significantly anyway. Having said that I think I wouldn't not see someone just because they had been to a pub. I would keep distance though as with any other outside of my household.

Peregrinus

theological wrote: »

The incidence of the virus has reduced to a point where it is less prevalent in the population.

But that would be true of any reduction in the incidence of the virus.

theological wrote: »

That makes the risk of transmission lower because fewer people have the virus.

That's also true of any reduction in the incidence of the virus.

theological wrote: »

The mitigation measures are in place to reduce that further. Given that this has reduced, it is important for people to get back to work if possible with COVID-secure guidelines in place.

It is a trade off and it is additional risk, but it is risk that can be mitigated, and people can make decisions to mitigate risk further.

This is basically an argument for removing protective measure so long as there is any reduction in the incidence of the virus. No matter how high the incidence is in absolute terms, as long as it was higher at one point in the past there has been a reduction and, on this reasoning, it's now important to lift restrictions.

I don't think this stacks up. Plus, I think its misconceived. What we are really concerned about is not what happened in the past; we can learn from that but we can't change it. What we should be focussed on is what will happen in the future. If we lift this restriction, what risks to we thereby create, how might they pan out, are we equipped to cope with them, etc etc?

What the past tells us is that having stringent restrictions in place led to a fall in infections. What we learn from that is that, all other things being equal, removing those restrictions will tend to result in a rise in infections. And the questions we should be asking ourselves are things like: With our present state of knowledge, how reliably can we model that rise? How well-equipped are we to detect that rise, react to it, deal with it? Are our monitoring and reporting systems in place? Are they working as they should? Is our track-and-trace system fully operational? Have we the resources we need? Is the app, that was to be key to our strategy, fully funcional and already loaded on everyone's phone? Etc, etc.

Pointing to the fall in infections achieved so far isn't an argument for relaxing restrictions; it's an argument for not relaxing them. And that's something that needs to be countered with forward-looking points such as those just mentioned.

theological wrote: »

As for your point about not knowing if your friends have been to the pub. I don't know about you, but my friends are pretty trustworthy . . .

Nobody said anything about my friends, Theo. It was the people I meet. If I'm to go back to work, then how am I to know if the people I meet at work - colleagues, clients, customers, members of the pubic, whoever - have been to pubs or restaurants? And, even if i can know that, how am I to avoid them? If, as you suggest above, facilitating a safe return to work is the priority, then maybe reopening the pubs and restaurants is actually counterproductive. Obviously, that works for those directly employed in pubs and restaurants, but for the other 95% of the workforce reopening pubs and restaurants tends to increase the risk of being at work, rather than reduce it.

theological

I'm still of the mind that people can mitigate this risk by following the other guidance. Keeping 2m apart when at work for example.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions at some stage. The legal measures that we've had were always going to be temporary. The economy needs to open up at some stage in a slow and reasoned way. In the last rounds of relaxation we were repeatedly told that this would lead to a spike in cases. It hasn't.

Local management of the virus while allowing society to edge slowly towards some sense of normality seems to be the right course. We should use the data to conclude if there has been a spike in transmission and control it locally.

It is fine saying we should ban everything forever, but there is also the twin concern that leaving everything shut long term is also damaging to peoples livelihoods.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

The incidence of the virus has reduced to a point where it is less prevalent in the population. That makes the risk of transmission lower because fewer people have the virus.

theological wrote: »

As for your point about not knowing if your friends have been to the pub. I don't know about you, but my friends are pretty trustworthy. I get a pretty clear idea of who they have been with over the last few weeks, and therefore I know who I have been exposed to indirectly.

Once again, these two statements - channelling a desire to "get back to normal" - also describe exactly the kind of normal that we all knew in December 2019. Back then, the virus was at a level where it was "less prevalent in the population" : did that reduce it's likelihood of becoming a pandemic? Back then, the question wasn't who do you know that's been to the pub, but "have you, or anyone you've been in contact with, travelled recently to the Wuhan area?" Many diagnoses were missed in November, December and January because Covid-19 patients answered "No" to that question (in the US, you couldn't even get a test if you answered No)

Your reference to the now-rising number of cases in France undermines your argument in favour of a gradual return to normal. In fact, in just about every country that has eased restrictions, the virus has made its presence felt very quickly, and not just as an infection that one person passes on to 0.8 or 1.1 other people as the R-number leads one to believe. The localised rate is much, much higher than that ... and we still don't know why.

From the beginning, the UK government has preferred to offer "guidance" rather than give orders - a situation you have consistently supported - but as Peregrinus points out, and as the Johnson family & entourage demonstrate, such guidance allows individuals to ignore the recommendation and put themselves and others at risk. You might write off the crowded beaches and raves and protests as exceptions rather than the norm, but chances are some of your friends are not even six degrees of separation away from those individuals.

CelticRambler

theological wrote: »

I'm still of the mind that people can mitigate this risk by following the other guidance. Keeping 2m apart when at work for example.

There are whole sectors of industry where it is entirely impractical to stay 2m apart from your work colleagues or your customers, or both. How do you ensure that people reliably follow "guidance" when the very word implies that it's not obligatory?

Funk It

I'm worried about the pubs opening up, I'm not too sure if everyone has dropped their guard or if there ever was any 'hard' lockdown.

Open to contradiction here, but as much as I wouldn't feel right heading into a pub or restaurant for a long time yet, I'd be open to a drink on a seat outside the rugby club as they're planning to reopen to members soon who need to book first. But will see how that goes. Think everyone should be cautious.

bob mcbob

theological wrote: »

I'm still of the mind that people can mitigate this risk by following the other guidance. Keeping 2m apart when at work for example.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions at some stage. The legal measures that we've had were always going to be temporary. The economy needs to open up at some stage in a slow and reasoned way. In the last rounds of relaxation we were repeatedly told that this would lead to a spike in cases. It hasn't.

Local management of the virus while allowing society to edge slowly towards some sense of normality seems to be the right course. We should use the data to conclude if there has been a spike in transmission and control it locally.

It is fine saying we should ban everything forever, but there is also the twin concern that leaving everything shut long term is also damaging to peoples livelihoods.

I thought I'd post this - it sums up the situation in Texas (end of April) when they decided to lift lockdown to a similar level that England is about to do tomorrow. At the point of lifting the lockdown they had 890 positive tests that day and 53 deaths - so not too far away from where England is now.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/hours-before-businesses-reopen-texas-reports-highest-daily-coronavirus-death-increase/

So what is the difference between Texas then and England now?
Well other than 2 months.

Yesterday Texas had 7.5K positive tests and 44 deaths

robinph

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I won't be going to the pub or restaurant tomorrow because, in Scotland, they will still be shut. The Scottish Government decided to get the infection numbers low before opening to that extent - due to open with mitigation measures next Friday

The decision by the Tories to open on 4th July and call it independece day for the people in England is very reckless is my view

Opening pubs on a Saturday is stupid, waiting a week and opening on a Friday isn't a whole lot better.

Should be opened on a Monday, not making a big song and dance about it, making it seem like a rubbish place to be, and potentially with a couple of hours earlier closing times for the Friday and Saturday nights for the first couple of weeks.

Let the pubs open and figure out how they can turn a profit, but the plans to open up on a weekend are totally reckless.

Enzokk

theological wrote: »

I'm still of the mind that people can mitigate this risk by following the other guidance. Keeping 2m apart when at work for example.

People need to take responsibility for their own actions at some stage. The legal measures that we've had were always going to be temporary. The economy needs to open up at some stage in a slow and reasoned way. In the last rounds of relaxation we were repeatedly told that this would lead to a spike in cases. It hasn't.

Local management of the virus while allowing society to edge slowly towards some sense of normality seems to be the right course. We should use the data to conclude if there has been a spike in transmission and control it locally.

It is fine saying we should ban everything forever, but there is also the twin concern that leaving everything shut long term is also damaging to peoples livelihoods.

On the bolded part, the PM's father ignoring the guidance from the FO to not travel and go check his holiday home in Greece and the PM refusing to condemn these actions means its a free for all.

https://twitter.com/Haggis_UK/status/1278971405825179650?s=20

So the politicians can keep talking about how people should be sensible and responsible and use their common sense but if they continue to be selfish themselves then there is no responsibility for anyone to be sensible.

robinph

bob mcbob wrote: »

I thought I'd post this - it sums up the situation in Texas (end of April) when they decided to lift lockdown to a similar level that England is about to do tomorrow. At the point of lifting the lockdown they had 890 positive tests that day and 53 deaths - so not too far away from where England is now.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/hours-before-businesses-reopen-texas-reports-highest-daily-coronavirus-death-increase/

So what is the difference between Texas then and England now?
Well other than 2 months.

Yesterday Texas had 7.5K positive tests and 44 deaths

I don't believe that Texas had had a previous peak though. They are now having their initial spike as they shut things down to an extent, held off Covid19 whilst it went wild everywhere else, then as other places get reduced numbers and open things up they get bored of things being shut down and open up as well, then get hit with what is actually the first wave because they think they were immune to it first time round.

A Dub in Glasgo

robinph wrote: »

Opening pubs on a Saturday is stupid, waiting a week and opening on a Friday isn't a whole lot better.

Should be opened on a Monday, not making a big song and dance about it, making it seem like a rubbish place to be, and potentially with a couple of hours earlier closing times for the Friday and Saturday nights for the first couple of weeks.

Let the pubs open and figure out how they can turn a profit, but the plans to open up on a weekend are totally reckless.

It appears I was mistaken, pubs and restaurants can reopen with 1m social distancing with mitigation measures in place on 15 July. It is beer gardens and outside dining that can reopen with 2m social distancing earlier

theological

bob mcbob wrote: »

I thought I'd post this - it sums up the situation in Texas (end of April) when they decided to lift lockdown to a similar level that England is about to do tomorrow. At the point of lifting the lockdown they had 890 positive tests that day and 53 deaths - so not too far away from where England is now.

https://www.texasmonthly.com/news/hours-before-businesses-reopen-texas-reports-highest-daily-coronavirus-death-increase/

So what is the difference between Texas then and England now?
Well other than 2 months.

Yesterday Texas had 7.5K positive tests and 44 deaths

You do know that Texas has less than half the population of the UK right? Meaning that the number of positive tests per capita is higher in Texas. The UK had 576 reported positive tests yesterday.

Without any detail about what mitigation measures they have put in place we can't meaningfully compare the situation as like with like.

Deaths only tell us about the past. Daily case numbers are more meaningful for telling us what is happening in the present. Total case numbers are meaningless for telling us about current prevalence also.

2ndcoming

Removing the two week quarantine to a bunch of European countries while you have the highest numbers of cases of any of those countries is incredibly Tory.

As soon as cases start rising linked to English travellers (especially on islands etc) those countries will have to come out and block English travellers, at which point Johnson & his gallery of ghouls can do what has worked for years - blame the EU, blame someone else etc.

That way they also get O'Leary and Easyjet to shut up cos they can say they tried.

I'm surprised it took them so long to do it, they probably thought it would be too hard to argue against it being completely cynical a few weeks ago.

Igotadose

theological wrote: »

You do know that Texas has less than half the population of the UK right? Meaning that the number of positive tests per capita is higher in Texas. The UK had 576 reported positive tests yesterday.

Without any detail about what mitigation measures they have put in place we can't meaningfully compare the situation as like with like.

Deaths only tell us about the past. Daily case numbers are more meaningful for telling us what is happening in the present. Total case numbers are meaningless for telling us about current prevalence also.

Population density Texas: 109 per sq mile
Population density UK: 259 per sq mile

Per-capita is kind of pointless as you point out, as Texas is much lower than the UK. It's population density.


However, countries like Japan (899 sq mil) and South Korea (1366) are much more densely populated. Both have had far lower Covid deaths because they wear masks readily. Easy, obvious solution. Just mandate masks in all settings and enable the police to enforce the mask wearing.