COVID-19 — Coronavirus

Status
Not open for further replies.
Manc in London said:
How does Lancaster compare to Camden (89/100,000 cases)?

We can all pick out outliers.
Click to expand...
These "cases per 100,000" haven't sat right with me for a while now.
Surely all of this data analysis needs to also take into account the actual magnitude of the population (and therefore magnitude of cases) in all of these areas, if one of the most important factors is hospital capacity?

If there are 89/100,000 cases and the population is 250,000 surely that's a worse situation for the hospitals than say 120/100,000 cases when the population is only 50,000. A local(ised) hospital may be able to cope with 60 cases, but could it cope with 222 new cases?

If the population is 5 times bigger then hospital facilities need to be five times bigger and the percentages don't take this into account. Then you look into neighbouring districts/boroughs. Do they also use the same local(ised) hospital resources? Are these nearby populations of a similar size? How big is this local hospital? The numbers soon start piling up and the percentages become almost irrelevant when sat alongside the actual number of people.
It feels very much like data manipulation to me, and from my experience data is generally manipulated in order to serve a hidden purpose.

It's a "shady" oversimplification of the analysis of the data as far as I'm concerned; don't get me wrong, percentages are obviously good for comparison purposes, but is the primary aim of this data to simply compare one place with another in order to create a "league table"? They don't tell the whole story and the actual raw data also has much more significance and relevance in this instance.
 
Last edited:
vincent said:
And are you sure all other metrics have been looked at carefully? Personally not convinced they have. The Lancs leaders ain’t happy.

www.bbc.com

Coronavirus: Anger as whole of Lancashire in tier 3

Council leaders had asked the government to split the county into different restriction tiers.
www.bbc.com www.bbc.com
Click to expand...
The blanket Lancashire restrictions make no sense, you could almost draw a line down the middle of the county, in the western half cases are falling, in the eastern half cases are plateauing or rising.
 
Manc in London said:
How does Lancaster compare to Camden (89/100,000 cases)?

We can all pick out outliers.
Click to expand...

Lancaster is c. 100/100k at the moment, the reason we are in tier 3 is because the govt decided unequivocally to not split sub-region areas (Lancashire, GM, London etc). In fairness they have not really done that anywhere in the UK, apart from Slough i believe.

There are 5 criteria for tiers; Case detection rates in all age groups, Case detection rates in the over 60s, The rate at which cases are rising or falling, Positivity rate (the number of positive cases detected as a percentage of tests taken), Pressure on the NHS.

Lancaster fail none (the hospitals are fine, a lot of friends work in LRI), we simply suffer from proxy, that is all. I have some sympathy as you have to draw a line somewhere and we and a few other low rate authorities suffer, it's the way it is. It wasn't exactly freedom and paradise we were missing out on!! perspective. I suppose being attached to Cumbria we could have made a special case to keep a contiguous area, but it would cause all sorts of bother the govt wouldn't be interested.

and for those wanting the 'given' reason for Manchester;


Capture.PNG
 
the-ecstacy-of-eight said:
These "cases per 100,000" haven't sat right with me for a while now.
Surely all of this data analysis needs to also take into account the actual magnitude of the population (and therefore magnitude of cases) in all of these areas, if one of the most important factors is hospital capacity?

If there are 89/100,000 cases and the population is 250,000 surely that's a worse situation for the hospitals than say 120/100,000 cases when the population is only 50,000. A local(ised) hospital may be able to cope with 60 cases, but could it cope with 222 new cases?

If the population is 5 times bigger then hospital facilities need to be five times bigger and the percentages don't take this into account. Then you look into neighbouring districts/boroughs. Do they also use the same local(ised) hospital resources? Are these nearby populations of a similar size? How big is this local hospital? The numbers soon start piling up and the percentages become almost irrelevant when sat alongside the actual number of people.
It feels very much like data manipulation to me, and from my experience data is generally manipulated in order to serve a hidden purpose.

It's a "shady" oversimplification of the analysis of the data as far as I'm concerned; don't get me wrong, percentages are obviously good for comparison purposes, but is the primary aim of this data to simply compare one place with another in order to create a "league table"? They don't tell the whole story and the actual raw data also has much more significance and relevance in this instance.
Click to expand...
My issue with them is that if only people with symptoms are getting tested, then people who’ve come into contact with them then surely it’ll be high, funny how once they test the whole of liverpool their numbers drop... because they’re testing thousands who haven’t got it.
 
This is an aside: The annual deaths due to flu, covid or pneumonia since 1901 from the ONS. It's not new and no doubt it has been discussed many times before.

It's worth looking at again for historical perspective and to consider how this compares to 'normal' 'flu epidemics.

Spanish 'flu is completely off the scale dwarfing Covid.

I ask myself and you why the world has been gripped by this because in terms of death it is significant but not really that unusual. You have to think though what it would like if the world did nothing. I think the horrifying thing for us is the fear that our parents get it but we don't have the same national reaction with 'flu.

Is the response to Covid19 rational? I include myself in that as I am caught up in it as much as anyone else.

You can argue that it's because the death is carried by one social group the elderly but isn't it always with respiratory illness?
 

Attachments

  • Flu v Covid.png
    Flu v Covid.png
    92.5 KB · Views: 25
Last edited:
Marvin said:
Is the response to Covid19 rational? I include myself in that as I am caught up in it as much as anyone else.
Click to expand...

Not all the responses have been rational, even within the NHS.

There's a sad story on the BBC website this morning about a woman who has lost her eyesight because her monthly injections were cancelled due to Covid.

Covid: Woman left blind after treatment delayed in pandemic - BBC News

I can relate to this one because macular degeneration is a bit of thing we suffer from in my family, e.g. my Mum and my Aunt need exactly the same monthly injections this lady was relying on.
 
Ric said:
Yeah, if someone wants to start a new thread I can happily add an anonymous poll to it.
Click to expand...
Without wanting a polling fest,wondered about a poll asking who has had it,who has had it in the immediate family ie partner,children gransparents / children / Or nobody close . Thought it might give some rough idea how many have had experience of family cases.
 
Marvin said:
This is an aside: The annual deaths due to flu, covid or pneumonia since 1901 from the ONS. It's not new and no doubt it has been discussed many times before.

It's worth looking at again for historical perspective and to consider how this compares to 'normal' 'flu epidemics.

Spanish 'flu is completely off the scale dwarfing Covid.

I ask myself and you why the world has been gripped by this because in terms of death it is significant but not really that unusual. You have to think though what it would like if the world did nothing. I think the horrifying thing for us is the fear that our parents get it but we don't have the same national reaction with 'flu.

Is the response to Covid19 rational? I include myself in that as I am caught up in it as much as anyone else.

You can argue that it's because the death is carried by one social group the elderly but isn't it always with respiratory illness?
Click to expand...
And the age group most susceptible was 20-40. Can you imagine if that were case now.
 
NeilYoungIsBack said:
Not all the responses have been rational, even within the NHS.

There's a sad story on the BBC website this morning about a woman who has lost her eyesight because her monthly injections were cancelled due to Covid.

Covid: Woman left blind after treatment delayed in pandemic - BBC News

I can relate to this one because macular degeneration is a bit of thing we suffer from in my family, e.g. my Mum and my Aunt need exactly the same monthly injections this lady was relying on.
Click to expand...
I’ve posted on here before about my 81 year old mother’s story, but she has gone blind throughout this, waiting for cataract surgery, which is classed as non urgent. She also has terminal cancer, which is untreatable but she is on ‘palliative care’. Palliative care in reality means she has seen no one since her diagnosis, delivered over the phone, in May. The hospice ring her occasionally to check how she is doing. She could go into the hospice, but there is currently no short respite provision. If you go in, you stay in, with no visitors until your final hours.
 
artfuldodger said:
I’ve posted on here before about my 81 year old mother’s story, but she has gone blind throughout this, waiting for cataract surgery, which is classed as non urgent. She also has terminal cancer, which is untreatable but she is on ‘palliative care’. Palliative care in reality means she has seen no one since her diagnosis, delivered over the phone, in May. The hospice ring her occasionally to check how she is doing. She could go into the hospice, but there is currently no short respite provision. If you go in, you stay in, with no visitors until your final hours.
Click to expand...
Terrible. It is so sad to hear stories like this.
 
NeilYoungIsBack said:
Not all the responses have been rational, even within the NHS.

There's a sad story on the BBC website this morning about a woman who has lost her eyesight because her monthly injections were cancelled due to Covid.

Covid: Woman left blind after treatment delayed in pandemic - BBC News

I can relate to this one because macular degeneration is a bit of thing we suffer from in my family, e.g. my Mum and my Aunt need exactly the same monthly injections this lady was relying on.
Click to expand...
I am completely fixated by this. You can not help but be however when I actually look at the data it's just a bad 'flu year, and is dwarfed by Spanish 'flu. Had we done nothing where would it be is perhaps the question?

The deaths are a significant leap from where we were in 2019 and in that sense it's a huge leap but we are only returning to the levels pre-flu jab. Then I happily went through school and was oblivious to illness.

We have to consider though what this would be if we did nothing. That is not clear. There are some countries such as Iran which lack the economic strength to lockdown. This epidemic is marked by waves which peak and then seem to crash but do they crash because every society naturally hunkers down until it passes.

It does not matter whether you are a modern civilised society or a favela, when illness comes to your neighbourhood everyone instinctively does the same - quarantine.

I think I go with the fear of the unknown. The world has. We aren't all hysterical surely? When you consider the cost to business and wealth production, the elites who run the world would not have sacrificed their wealth had it not been necessary?
 
Marvin said:
I am completely fixated by this. You can not help but be however when I actually look at the data it's just a bad 'flu year, and is dwarfed by Spanish 'flu. Had we done nothing where would it be is perhaps the question?

The deaths are a significant leap from where we were in 2019 and in that sense it's a huge leap but we are only returning to the levels pre-flu jab. Then I happily went through school and was oblivious to illness.

We have to consider though what this would be if we did nothing. That is not clear. There are some countries such as Iran which lack the economic strength to lockdown. This epidemic is marked by waves which peak and then seem to crash but do they crash because every society naturally hunkers down until it passes.

It does not matter whether you are a modern civilised society or a favela, when illness comes to your neighbourhood everyone instinctively does the same - quarantine.

I think I go with the fear of the unknown. The world has. We aren't all hysterical surely? When you consider the cost to business and wealth production, the elites who run the world would not have sacrificed their wealth had it not been necessary?
Click to expand...
So are you up for working down the pit and defending a trench in France, Spain or Belgium. Things have moved on a bit over the last 100 years.
 
Last edited:
worsleyweb said:
They have less cases per 100,000 than us. Stop this northern persecution nonsense.
Click to expand...

Oh come on you can't deny the divide surely?
The North has always and will be always be treated with contempt from the Tories.
They don't care.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top