| UK Coronavirus stats 22:48 - May 10 with 1190 views | Pendejo |
Even before being furloughed I have been fascinated with this page of BBC website
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51768274
As it gave population and cases by area, now they've added deaths and those deaths as a % of the overall deaths in that area over the sample period.
Try it with your area, and those that are fear to you.
Being an utterly boring person I did all the London boroughs, most of the South East and other random places....
Covid deaths made up 52% of all deaths in Brent for the period specified whereas in Anglesey it was only 2%. The Greater London average appears to be 39.6%.
Suffolk is 14%
Why the disparity?
Relative levels of wealth, health?
As for disproportionate number of BAME affected? Who are the ones who have had to work?
Hospital staff, bus drivers, shop workers etc. I'd speculate they (BAME) make up a high proportion of folks not fortunate enough to be furloughed* hence more likely to be breathing covid air / have contact with the virus as staying at home not an option.
Those who have had to commute to work from Harrow, Haringey, Brent, Newham (all 47%+) possibly travelling into Central London on infected public transport...
My Borough, Lewisham, records covid as being responsible for 43% of deaths, what we really need to know is how many of them are "excess deaths" i.e. Above the average rate / previous years.
All simply observations, no science and only the % are facts as reported by the BBC
*furloughed
For what it's worth, I expect to be made redundant once furlough period ends, and don't expect to find a similar paying job anytime soon. But I will still consider myself one of the lucky ones..... Especially as I tick a few of the covid boxes - over 50, overweight, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure... 3 of which I've tried to address with daily exercise.
Keep safe folks.... |  |
| |  |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:06 - May 10 with 1143 views | Lord_Lucan |
Well the different shades of blue are a bit similar but the way I read it is that most of the country is less than 30 cases per 10,000 people.
For a massive hopefully once in a lifetime pandemic I can't help thinking that worldwide numbers are low. We are looking at circa 30k in the UK at present and whilst that is a lot of people if someone had told me a year ago that there would be a world pandemic like we have never seen before I think my brain would be imagining 1m dead.
My concern is that we don't know how far down the line we are with this and if or how it will mutate or how long it will stay with us. What happens if a new virus hits the planet at the same time which is different and far less recoverable than this?
Things could be a whole lot bloody worse. [Post edited 10 May 2020 23:07]
|  |
| |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:09 - May 10 with 1136 views | pointofblue |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:06 - May 10 by Lord_Lucan |
Well the different shades of blue are a bit similar but the way I read it is that most of the country is less than 30 cases per 10,000 people.
For a massive hopefully once in a lifetime pandemic I can't help thinking that worldwide numbers are low. We are looking at circa 30k in the UK at present and whilst that is a lot of people if someone had told me a year ago that there would be a world pandemic like we have never seen before I think my brain would be imagining 1m dead.
My concern is that we don't know how far down the line we are with this and if or how it will mutate or how long it will stay with us. What happens if a new virus hits the planet at the same time which is different and far less recoverable than this?
Things could be a whole lot bloody worse. [Post edited 10 May 2020 23:07]
|
I think the bigger risk is Covid-19 mutates into somethig which is easier to trasmit and harder to recover from rather than a brand new disease, considering it's been over 100 years since the last pandemic. Though go back six months and none of us would have seen this coming. [Post edited 10 May 2020 23:09]
|  |
| |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:11 - May 10 with 1124 views | homer_123 |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:09 - May 10 by pointofblue |
I think the bigger risk is Covid-19 mutates into somethig which is easier to trasmit and harder to recover from rather than a brand new disease, considering it's been over 100 years since the last pandemic. Though go back six months and none of us would have seen this coming. [Post edited 10 May 2020 23:09]
|
Its already mutated. Over 100 variants already found.
Some make it easier to transmit and more virulent. Others less so. Not fully peer researched in all cases though.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/health-52557955 [Post edited 10 May 2020 23:13]
|  |
| |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:24 - May 10 with 1092 views | Pinewoodblue |
Trouble is the numbers don’t add up on the BBC site you linked to.
The population of Norfolk is greater than Suffolk , coronavirus deaths are shown as being higher in Suffolk yet the map showing deaths by County suggests mores deaths per 100,000 in Norfolk than in Suffolk.
You just don’t know who or what to believe these days. |  |
| |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:27 - May 10 with 1082 views | Melford |
Because Suffolk apart from Ipswich is pretty rural, other than people getting the train or driving to norwich there's not many people coming through the county. I reckon in my village half the population are over 60 and barely leave the place other than go to Sudbury the next town on once a week and I reckon most small villages in Suffolk are the same. It's pretty insular compared to London. |  |
| |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 00:27 - May 11 with 1014 views | Clapham_Junction |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:24 - May 10 by Pinewoodblue |
Trouble is the numbers don’t add up on the BBC site you linked to.
The population of Norfolk is greater than Suffolk , coronavirus deaths are shown as being higher in Suffolk yet the map showing deaths by County suggests mores deaths per 100,000 in Norfolk than in Suffolk.
You just don’t know who or what to believe these days. |
Unless I'm missing something, the map shows cases, not deaths (which there have been more of in Norfolk). |  | | |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 08:34 - May 11 with 790 views | factual_blue |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:24 - May 10 by Pinewoodblue |
Trouble is the numbers don’t add up on the BBC site you linked to.
The population of Norfolk is greater than Suffolk , coronavirus deaths are shown as being higher in Suffolk yet the map showing deaths by County suggests mores deaths per 100,000 in Norfolk than in Suffolk.
You just don’t know who or what to believe these days. |
Well, all the figures come not from the BBC, but from the government. The statisticians at both the DHSC and the ONS know their stuff, so I'd take it up with them if I were you. |  |
| |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 10:15 - May 11 with 735 views | Swansea_Blue |
| UK Coronavirus stats on 23:24 - May 10 by Pinewoodblue |
Trouble is the numbers don’t add up on the BBC site you linked to.
The population of Norfolk is greater than Suffolk , coronavirus deaths are shown as being higher in Suffolk yet the map showing deaths by County suggests mores deaths per 100,000 in Norfolk than in Suffolk.
You just don’t know who or what to believe these days. |
The numbers are being reported are very precise, but not particularly accurate. For example, they've reported cases and deaths to the nearest 1 person yet we know that there are whole swathes of the community not included in the stats. People getting the virus who've not been tested, people who've died but not in a hospital or care home who may or may not have been tested, etc. Error rates could be 100%. The Financial Times analysis of excess deaths, which gives a figure nearer 55,000 possible deaths, is likely to be more accurate than the official stats. But that's only an indication at best.
So drilling down and trying to do more granular analyses on subsets of the data is going to be riddled with inaccuracies. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
