"Except that the original model included expectations from various reactions-
and none of them resulted in a 96percent drop."
It's irrelevant, the catastrophic scenario of 500K remains unchanged under his model, which was the worst possible scenario where nothing was done, comparing the 20K to the 500K is like comparing apples and oranges, it's pointless, these are two different scenarios, and regardless of how the containment scenario may have changed, according to his own words, the "do nothing" scenario has not.
"and it is odd that you omitted and -half of the remaining UK deaths would be from natural causes."
Not sure what you mean. Are you saying that half of the 500K would be deaths of natural causes? If that IS what you're saying, I'm curious where you read this.
"This is a normal distribution with 90percent of the distribution in Korea occurring within 32days."
I don't even know what you're trying to compare with South Korea, they had their first case before the UK and they've gotten out of the exponential for some time now, it's practically contained over there. In the UK, it's still in the exponential phase even under the new measures, there are already far more deaths and far more cases, and these countries have comparable population size. South Korea was more prepared and did extensive testing and population tracking, which is how they avoided the full lock-down, the UK did not do that, the outcomes will not be the same, in fact they're already not the same.
"If the new infection rate in Italy did peak four days ago as the data says, Italy's curve will be almost identical to Koreas."
How? How would Italy's curve even compare to South Korea?
Are you just saying that Italy will slowly reduce the rate of case increase? Sure, eventually all countries will, all epidemic curves eventually flatten, even doing nothing, because worst case scenario everyone gets the virus and the number of cases can't increase anymore, but Italy's situation is horrendous, comparatively South Korea is doing fine, and that's not even accounting for the possible rebound after the lock-down ends, which South Korea won't have, I don't know what you're trying to say here.
"Likewise it looks like most of europe has peaked or is peaking-Italy, Spain, Germany etc.....have seen drops in new infections and their curves to date mirror S Korea-some wider, some higher-
never hear a word about Austria-stop wondering why as the most current data suggests their curve will be both shorter and flatter than S Korea."
All these countries have implemented counter-measures, and unless there's intensive testing coupled with case tracking, as soon as lock-downs end, it's going to bounce back.
Austria can't possibly be better off than South Korea, they have around the same number of cases for a fifth of South Korea's population, they're doing worse so far. The only positive for them is that they have fewer deaths, but their increase rate is still high, they're not flattened yet.
"IOW the whole world has cr8pped or his crapping on his model but he says nothing."
You mean that the whole world is crapping on the worst case scenario of his model? Sure, and that's expected, I'm more surprised by the fact that you expect him to say something about that to be honest. That's expected, it would have been far more surprising if countries didn't do anything and let the worst case scenario happen.
"The WHO is leftist,
Nope-trouble in China and on and on and on."
All of this ramble is irrelevant regarding the study and its worst-case scenario prediction.
I'm here to discuss why you think that this new 20K figure in any way contradicts the 500K figure, given that they refer to two different scenarios in the first place, and given that one of the author of the study maintains this 500K figure given the same scenario.