Of course they need more data. Every scientist that ever published anything ever would concede that more data would strengthen their argument. Likewise we’re obviously not comparing two identical scenarios. Real life research can’t always be done with precisely matched cohorts. Whatever, that data clearly supports the case for early, aggressive action. In the absence of any data that the Uk approach will save more lives (which I’d love to see someone share?) I think this is pretty fecking compelling about what is the right thing to do!
Even those who wrote the paper don't make those conclusions. All they write is "We note that social distancing interventions were invoked on Feb 23rd in Lodi but until March 8th in Bergamo, providing some empirical evidence for the potential of “flattening the curve” interventions." That is it and they move on to other things. On Twitter meanwhile they caution against people drawing the conclusions that they want to draw.
You're comparing a small provincial town a third of the size of a regional tourist hub with the third biggest international airport in all of Italy. If this is the best you've got for employing immediate lockdowns, you don't have anything.
People need to be reading the source papers and comments from the highly respected academics who are producing this research, rather than the highly confident, more marketable and often more eloquent, rent-a-mouths and social media influencers taking their research and using it for their own purposes, which culminated with the absolute car crash interview between on
John Edmunds and
Tomas Pueyo on
Channel 4. It's too easy to cherry pick this data, make a nice Twitter feed or Medium article, and make a highly polished, but entirely flawed, read that would be torn to pieces academically and shouldn't be used for policy making.
This is serious, interesting research, but it;s already being misrepresented.