It doesn't help Bury that we have the smallest population in GM, so any increase in numbers will affect the Pop Score to a larger extent than the others.Not planning to publish tables of Pop Scores for Greater Manchester again but there were some significant changes today worth mentioning. So I will only refer to these numbers when something big changes like this.
Oldham took over as the best in GM on 270 now Manchester is rising and Bury took over from both Trafford and Stockport after two or three weeks with them way ahead of the rest.
Bury has clocked up some high numbers in recent days to become the worst in GM and now above both those two. The media will likely notice this in a few days on the 5 day old numbers they use.
Perhaps the chancellor should have checked Blue Moon before going to Bury Market Friday and then telling the cameras he was in the famous Burnley Market.
Bury now easily the one going up the most in GM at the moment and on 467 - just topping the falling Traffords 465. Stockport's 455 & Tameside's 452.
A big change to the huge gap between Trafford and the rest 2 weeks ago.
Perhaps I am misunderstand your argument, but.....It doesn't help Bury that we have the smallest population in GM, so any increase in numbers will affect the Pop Score to a larger extent than the others.
I think the argument is that for a population of 50k, each single case would be worth 2 in the population score (i think it's done per 100k - correct me if i'm wrong) whereas in a population of 100k, each case would only be worth 1. Obvously simple numbers to highlight the point, but i think that's what was being got at.Perhaps I am misunderstand your argument, but.....
The Pop(ulation) score relates case numbers directly to the borough population number and so actually exists to minimise that kind of problem.
Its Pop score was 65 yesterday with 125 cases. Trafford was 64 with 151 cases and Stockport was 61 with 179 cases - the cases v population number tells you why Bury was worst of the three not as the actual case number suggests it was the best. But the Pop number reveals otherwise.
The weekly Pop number (which Bury now leads) and the month to month one (also) show more c learly the trend as they smooth out the day to day ups and downs of cases reported which depend on lab tests and how long they take to come back.
So it really measures proportions versus one another not big or large raw case numbers.
It is not perfect and many other factors will be involved (local outbreaks, age of population, levels of vaccination etc) but it is the best way to define the progress of one place against another when they all have different sizes of population that otherwise would be misleading because of big and large numbers living there.
But Roubaix is the statistics expert and might better know if the smaller population will have any effect as you suggest it might. Pop Score is still a better guide to the true picture than actual case numbers imo.
HP, Thanks for the explanation, it's probably me who doesn't have a full grasp of the way statistics work.Perhaps I am misunderstand your argument, but.....
The Pop(ulation) score relates case numbers directly to the borough population number and so actually exists to minimise that kind of problem.
Its Pop score was 65 yesterday with 125 cases. Trafford was 64 with 151 cases and Stockport was 61 with 179 cases - the cases v population number tells you why Bury was worst of the three not as the actual case number suggests it was the best. But the Pop number reveals otherwise.
The weekly Pop number (which Bury now leads) and the month to month one (also) show more c learly the trend as they smooth out the day to day ups and downs of cases reported which depend on lab tests and how long they take to come back.
So it really measures proportions versus one another not big or large raw case numbers.
It is not perfect and many other factors will be involved (local outbreaks, age of population, levels of vaccination etc) but it is the best way to define the progress of one place against another when they all have different sizes of population that otherwise would be misleading because of big and large numbers living there.
But Roubaix is the statistics expert and might better know if the smaller population will have any effect as you suggest it might. Pop Score is still a better guide to the true picture than actual case numbers imo.
No I did maths A level a zillion years ago and that was about it! So no true understanding of these things myselfHP, Thanks for the explanation, it's probably me who doesn't have a full grasp of the way statistics work.
A good example of that was when tiny Rutland (pop. 39,000) briefly had the highest cases per 100k population after a Covid outbreak of a few hundred prisoners at a prison on the border with Lincolnshire. There were hardly any cases in the rest of the county, and an outbreak in a larger Local Authority wouldn't have made the same impact on the stats.I think the argument is that for a population of 50k, each single case would be worth 2 in the population score (i think it's done per 100k - correct me if i'm wrong) whereas in a population of 100k, each case would only be worth 1. Obvously simple numbers to highlight the point, but i think that's what was being got at.
This is getting tedious now. Heads should be rolling. Such a poor reflection on our country that we can't even produce data consistently.Btw a major data outage (another one!) yesterday means no deaths will be available from England hospitals today. They have only published the Saturday and Sunday numbers.
The issue has been resolved so they will post two days tomorrow.
Deaths still rising and the first 100 + death in England hospitals recorded at 5 days since 8 March.
NW deaths though down on last weekend.
I worked at a strategic level (in Finance) for 30 odd years and before Covid I don't ever remember death numbers being a feature of NHS reporting, except in the context of unexpected clinical outcomes. I imagine a lot of the analysis of trends in deaths only occurred annually.It is worrying it goes wrong so much but I imagine so many have got used to using this technology during lockdown that is is now in great demand and maybe over stressed.
It looks as if someone had a word as Gov UK have put a message up saying they have delayed todays data until England hospitals provide them with the death numbers for today.
How do we know other countries don’t have sinilar issues after all it’s hardly headline news. Nobody would know we had issues if we didn’t get told in this thread.This is getting tedious now. Heads should be rolling. Such a poor reflection on our country that we can't even produce data consistently.
Thank you that would make sense.I worked at a strategic level (in Finance) for 30 odd years and before Covid I don't ever remember death numbers being a feature of NHS reporting, except in the context of unexpected clinical outcomes. I imagine a lot of the analysis of trends in deaths only occurred annually.
Hospitals really had to respond in rapid time to get information on deaths attributed to Covid, often with clerical staff working from home. The impression of a real-time reporting system adding deaths by Covid when the death occurs was far from the reality.
You should see Twitter every time it happens. They make sure people do know. And the conspiracy theories are often amusing.How do we know other countries don’t have sinilar issues after all it’s hardly headline news. Nobody would know we had issues if we didn’t get told in this thread.
Adjusted mortality rate data was collected for a long time and initially ignored eg in the case of Tue Staffordshire Hospitals scandal. The daily Covid death information collections had to be in place during the crisis and it relies on a lot of goodwill like you said.I worked at a strategic level (in Finance) for 30 odd years and before Covid I don't ever remember death numbers being a feature of NHS reporting, except in the context of unexpected clinical outcomes. I imagine a lot of the analysis of trends in deaths only occurred annually.
Hospitals really had to respond in rapid time to get information on deaths attributed to Covid, often with clerical staff working from home. The impression of a real-time reporting system adding deaths by Covid when the death occurs was far from the reality.