Coronavirus (2021) thread

[Invisible Man's Bandage]

Covid test centres will be closing at 6pm latest as of today. Lack of demand in the evening being cited but I assume the enormous cost of testing will have to be reduced at some point.

 

[Blue and still suffering]

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.

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.

 

[Healdplace]

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.

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.

 

[Healdplace]

To cheer you up a bit Blue and still suffering - ref Bury.

Though I am not posting numbers like I was so not going to give any regular Zoe updates they are showing Bury having moved down in past couple of days and today actually become the best in all GM.

So that is hopeful of a shift. As it seems to be tracking well other changes. Such as Salford rising and Stockport falling now below 20 K today.

Both daily case numbers and the level of ongoing infections have also been falling on Zoe over the past few days too.

 

[BlueAnorak]

New cases have halved in a week here in Bromsgrove. Looking fairly positive I think. Then again schools are back now...

 

[Healdplace]

Will shut up now until this evening so I do not drift back into posting too much.

 

[BlueHammer85]

Tonga's main island will go into lockdown for a week following its first reported case of coronavirus since the pandemic began

 

[feelymcfeel]

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.

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.

 

[Blue and still suffering]

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.

 

[Healdplace]

HP, Thanks for the explanation, it's probably me who doesn't have a full grasp of the way statistics work.

No I did maths A level a zillion years ago and that was about it! So no true understanding of these things myself

Really it is just fairer than raw case numbers because they take no account of population levels. Pop Scores do so they are at least better than just comparing cases. Though the actual case numbers do tell you things too which is why I gave them with the ups and downs day to day and week to week which were more helpful.

Low numbers might bring sone inequity. I do not have the knowledge to know. But I assume the governme t use Pop Scores to make all decisions and not case numbers as such. So presumably they have been advised by mathematicians that is the best way.

All case related numbers are just guides anyway not literal day to day changes as cases announced on any day are from tests carried out over several past days and so go up and down if batches are delayed or delivered fast and the weekly Pop numbers and week to week case numbers I used to post the tables for tell you different nuances of that.

Bury on the weekly cases has long been top or near top (as in lowest score) because of its low population.

So I used to keep posting all the many sets of numbers daily not because I was obsessed (they were tine consuming) but because only that spread of different sets gives the full picture for any one location.

And is usually why the media miss changes happening as they appear at different times in different sets of data and some may never last long enough to turn up on the ones the media refer to - as these are always 5 days old data trying to account for the time lag in delivering test results.

It does help in that regard but also means you see things like astronomers do - always looking at the past. Though happily only a few days not countless many years when looking at nearby stars or galaxies.

There aer always going to be flaws with any one measure. But the Pop Score is the most rounded and is the one governbment decisions stem from. Though Bury is nowhere near the level when that would happen. Still well below where Trafford was a week or two ago. Or Stockport. And nobody even noticed that or at least said they did publicly. So Bury is not in any real trouble right now.