bluejon
Well-Known Member
2020 gets even weirder.Completely agree with this.
2020 gets even weirder.Completely agree with this.
And me, he’s still got shares in a company he’s helping produce a vaccine.... no conflict of interest there....
Hancock has now said on Sky you can only have sex in an established relationship...
You want me to wear a mask while I’m walking my dog in the park ?
And the apostrophe :-)Lets play spot the oxymoron
2020 gets even weirder.
The quick answer to that is "yes, there was a lot to learn from that". I believe what happened in Leicester was the disease hadn't spread throughout the city prior to lockdown unlike the major urban areas so it took longer to hit the vulnerable older muslim population (who were predominantly the group affected in Leicester, same as Oldham etc). When it did hit, you get the same touch paper situation we had in the care homes sector and suddenly you got a noticeable short sharp increase in illness/infection. My full answer to that is a lot more complex, and does involve different behaviours in different racial demographics, but that's the best i can do without an essay.bluejon what is your take on two things I find interesting if you look at the gov.uk graphs of individual areas during the pandemic.
Why has Leicester been so different (there are a couple of others like it but as a city area this stands out)? Climbing slowly through the April peak in a way you are hoping this 'second wave' (real or just in name) may do? It reached the levels other places had got to in early/mid April after being well below during the peak.
What caused it to rise so slowly when elsewhere was not and then keep climbing for many weeks until it was put inti measures in late June when everywhere else more or less was falling to near nothing?
Can we learn anything from this anomaly?
And Ashford, which was hit very badly in the early days (I wondered in here if because of the Eurostar station) and was the second behind Leicester to go to a 1000 pop score. But it had its peak and fell like elsewhere and is still at a very low level such thar its pop score is barely moving.
Do statistocians just see these as inevitable differences or do they mean something useful to understand ?
That has nothing to do with the post that 99% of tests give a false positive.
That is bollocks.