Jump to content
Message added by Jim,

Please remember - this thread can get a bit heated at times... try to keep politics out of it, and be respectful to the views of others.

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, cvabishop said:

Please don't go looking for offence where it is not intended and make erroneous inferences as a result.

I think the problem here is probably age related. There are a whole host of words expressions and phrases who's meanings change over time and that have different connotations to different age groups. People today would be horrified at the name my grandfather called black his cat but at the time nobody batted an eyelid. He would have been mortified if he could come back today because people these days make many connections to words that when used in the past just would not have been associated with things they are today.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We've a young crowd in here today!

It will be pasta and rice next, how have they got through the stockpiles from March?

The Corona virus hit Roscoff overnight, several victims in a critical state.....🤪 Chris

Posted Images

Quote

I think the problem here is probably age related.

Yes, there is some truth in that. In my youth 'Gay' meant something much different to what it does now. A great shame in some respects but that is the way it is.

The funny thing with 'natives' is that it did originally often tend to refer to spear carrying cannibals and the like but subsequently took on a more broader and technically correct meaning in common useage as referring to people of any type in a specific geographical location. I like to think that is still the generally accepted meaning although it seems that there is a tendency in some quarters to associate it with coloured folk, a concept which I personally think is quite outdated in this day and age although others may beg to differ.

At the moment there is a lot of debate about slavery which seems to assume that it is largely about the deplorable slave trade between Africa and the West Indies and America. It is true that this was a shameful period involving what we considered to be civilised nations but the truth is that slavery is entrenched in human history and was practised enthusiastically from ancient times up to the present day including the Egyptians, Greeks and Romans and latterly the civilisations that followed them, somehting which today's protesters seem to overlook. There is plenty of effective slavery in the UK today which is proving difficult to find and stamp out. Of course black lives matter but so do those of the oppressed immigrants forced to work for gangmasters at risk of their lives such as in Morcambe Bay where many cockle pickers died.

All bad and no easy answers unfortunately.

Edited by cvabishop
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jonno said:

That's right. There were 14 but 2 have been discharged home

But 0 in the NOIDs report. I think I'm being thick!

No problem with the low response, I've been reading the Secret Seven to a young 'un and catching up on work but thankfully not interrogated by the other half (her expertise is museums)

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, VikingVoyager said:

But 0 in the NOIDs report. I think I'm being thick!

No problem with the low response, I've been reading the Secret Seven to a young 'un and catching up on work but thankfully not interrogated by the other half (her expertise is museums)

No you're not being thick, if there are no admissions in the particular week there'll be no notification on the list. Next week there maybe 10 so week 42 will show that figure, it's up to you to do the maths and add it the previous weeks gone by.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, jonno said:

No you're not being thick, if there are no admissions in the particular week there'll be no notification on the list. Next week there maybe 10 so week 42 will show that figure, it's up to you to do the maths and add it the previous weeks gone by.

 

 

No maybe about it, surely, if there were zero in this week's report there must be 10 in next week's

What do you think the reason for the persistent high numbers in the SW is (in NOIDs reports)?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The government announced the new three tier system of restrictions as a way of simplifying for people what they can and cannot do.

Just listing to the BBC it seems that the tier 3 restrictions are different in Liverpool to the ones in Lancashire. What chance have we got? Any odds that Manchester's will be different to both of them

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, IanN said:

The government announced the new three tier system of restrictions as a way of simplifying for people what they can and cannot do.

Just listing to the BBC it seems that the tier 3 restrictions are different in Liverpool to the ones in Lancashire. What chance have we got? Any odds that Manchester's will be different to both of them

The rules are quite clear, tier 3 does allow for local extras, it is Tier 1 and 2 that are constant, however as usual it is not communicated well and the press and local politicians enjoy complaining and not giving out information.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-covid-alert-levels-what-you-need-to-know

 

 

 

Edited by David Williams
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, David Williams said:

The rules are quite clear, tier 3 does allow for local extras, it is Tier 1 and 2 that are constant, however as usual it is not communicated well and the press and local politicians enjoy complaining and not giving out information.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/local-covid-alert-levels-what-you-need-to-know

 

 

 

Thanks for that David I obviously only listened to the banner headline of simplification of the rules

Surely the areas with the highest infection rates and hospital admissions should have the simplest set of rules and be the same across the UK so there is no confusion. Its bad enough with the various devolved governments doing different things now areas of high risk can do different things. How this simplifies anything I don't know. Perhaps I should start going to the pub for clarification. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, jonno said:

No you're not being thick, if there are no admissions in the particular week there'll be no notification on the list. Next week there maybe 10 so week 42 will show that figure, it's up to you to do the maths and add it the previous weeks gone by.

 

 

@jonno would I be correct in thinking that the figures you are kindly providing relate only to hospital admissions of confirmed cases but other statistics refer just to confirmed cases whether hospitalized or not? If this is the case then presumably the difference in perceived high cases in the south west from the figures you or others quote probably can be explained by high average population age which may well require hospital intervention and lack of large university populations which are very largely able to cope without. High infection rates in both Bournemouth town centre and Exeter might point to this being the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Rattler43 said:

@jonno would I be correct in thinking that the figures you are kindly providing relate only to hospital admissions of confirmed cases but other statistics refer just to confirmed cases whether hospitalized or not? If this is the case then presumably the difference in perceived high cases in the south west from the figures you or others quote probably can be explained by high average population age which may well require hospital intervention and lack of large university populations which are very largely able to cope without. High infection rates in both Bournemouth town centre and Exeter might point to this being the case. 

Yes they are hospital admissions of confirmed cases only. You're theory in reference to larger university age populations is an interesting one and think should be investigated more. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Rattler43 said:

@jonno would I be correct in thinking that the figures you are kindly providing relate only to hospital admissions of confirmed cases but other statistics refer just to confirmed cases whether hospitalized or not? If this is the case then presumably the difference in perceived high cases in the south west from the figures you or others quote probably can be explained by high average population age which may well require hospital intervention and lack of large university populations which are very largely able to cope without. High infection rates in both Bournemouth town centre and Exeter might point to this being the case. 

It's an interesting theory, so I tested it on the week 39 data using the SW and the next worst region (the NW). 

For that week, there were 50 admissions across the NW, and 558 in the SW. 

Populations for the two regions are 734,000 and 562,000 according to figures I found.  Figures from the the US reckon that hospitalisation rates for Covid are 12 higher for the 85+ year group compared to the 18-29 group (there's a whole spectrum of rates in the link)

I started by assuming equal distribution by age in NW across the 9 age groups (not a good assumption but tested later).  I used this to come up with an average hospitalisation rate (0.0000017) that when adjusted for the CDC age band impacts gave the correct number of cases for the NW.

I then assumed that everyone in the SW was in the highest age group (e.g. 85+). Not a great assumption given that the SW includes Bristol, Plymouth and Exeter - all of which have universities but a good test of the theory.  

Even under this assumption - the figures show that there would have been only 123 hospital admissions in the SW, if their rate was the same as NW.  Don't forget, we are told that SW has one of the lowest infection rates in the country.

I tested it a bit further and assumed that everyone in the NW was in the lowest risk category (5-17 years) where hospitalisation rates are 9x lower than the 18-29 figure - that gave an expected hospitalised number of 4482 in the SW, if the whole of that region is in the oldest category. 

More realistically but still flawed, I assumed that everyone in the NW was in the 18-29 class (the index class on the CDC data), and that gave an expected 498 hosp cases in the SW (still assuming that they are all 85+) based on the NW rates.

Btw, if we assume the same population distribution in the two regions, we would have expected 38 hospitalisations in the SW, based on NW rates.

From that (and congrats if you stayed with me), I conclude that there is something very odd about the NOIDS data in the SW. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, VikingVoyager said:

It's an interesting theory, so I tested it on the week 39 data using the SW and the next worst region (the NW). 

For that week, there were 50 admissions across the NW, and 558 in the SW. 

Populations for the two regions are 734,000 and 562,000 according to figures I found.  Figures from the the US reckon that hospitalisation rates for Covid are 12 higher for the 85+ year group compared to the 18-29 group (there's a whole spectrum of rates in the link)

I started by assuming equal distribution by age in NW across the 9 age groups (not a good assumption but tested later).  I used this to come up with an average hospitalisation rate (0.0000017) that when adjusted for the CDC age band impacts gave the correct number of cases for the NW.

I then assumed that everyone in the SW was in the highest age group (e.g. 85+). Not a great assumption given that the SW includes Bristol, Plymouth and Exeter - all of which have universities but a good test of the theory.  

Even under this assumption - the figures show that there would have been only 123 hospital admissions in the SW, if their rate was the same as NW.  Don't forget, we are told that SW has one of the lowest infection rates in the country.

I tested it a bit further and assumed that everyone in the NW was in the lowest risk category (5-17 years) where hospitalisation rates are 9x lower than the 18-29 figure - that gave an expected hospitalised number of 4482 in the SW, if the whole of that region is in the oldest category. 

More realistically but still flawed, I assumed that everyone in the NW was in the 18-29 class (the index class on the CDC data), and that gave an expected 498 hosp cases in the SW (still assuming that they are all 85+) based on the NW rates.

Btw, if we assume the same population distribution in the two regions, we would have expected 38 hospitalisations in the SW, based on NW rates.

From that (and congrats if you stayed with me), I conclude that there is something very odd about the NOIDS data in the SW. 

Just a thought but the population data you are using will surely only include those permanently resident in the region and not transient university students or undeclared members of large households. Obviously without knowing the exact numbers the risk is the statistics are unreliable. Ed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Cabin-boy said:

Just a thought but the population data you are using will surely only include those permanently resident in the region and not transient university students or undeclared members of large households. Obviously without knowing the exact numbers the risk is the statistics are unreliable. Ed. 

Probably true - but compared to the other factors it will have minimal impact and I'd be surprised if the two regions were impacted very differently - they both have large universities

Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the other possibilities could be that the inhabitants of the south west perceive hospitals not to be the safest of places. I would imagine those in the south west don't find hospitals as easily accessible as they probably are in some other regions and may therefore tend to struggle on on their own for longer and consequently may probably recover without recourse to hospital.

Edited by Rattler43
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Cabin-boy said:

Just a thought but the population data you are using will surely only include those permanently resident in the region and not transient university students or undeclared members of large households. Obviously without knowing the exact numbers the risk is the statistics are unreliable. Ed. 

I make it that the SW has approx. 170,000 Uni students across 15 institutions, compared to 235,000 in the NW (also 15 places of learning). That's a rate of 0.030 students per population in SW vs 0.032 in the NW. 

The outlier here is the East of England with only 90,000 students seven universities -  a rate of 0.01. Scotland, Wales and London are the mostly "densely studented" (>0.040 students per population)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, VikingVoyager said:

It's an interesting theory, so I tested it on the week 39 data using the SW and the next worst region (the NW). 

For that week, there were 50 admissions across the NW, and 558 in the SW. 

Populations for the two regions are 734,000 and 562,000 according to figures I found.  Figures from the the US reckon that hospitalisation rates for Covid are 12 higher for the 85+ year group compared to the 18-29 group (there's a whole spectrum of rates in the link)

I started by assuming equal distribution by age in NW across the 9 age groups (not a good assumption but tested later).  I used this to come up with an average hospitalisation rate (0.0000017) that when adjusted for the CDC age band impacts gave the correct number of cases for the NW.

I then assumed that everyone in the SW was in the highest age group (e.g. 85+). Not a great assumption given that the SW includes Bristol, Plymouth and Exeter - all of which have universities but a good test of the theory.  

Even under this assumption - the figures show that there would have been only 123 hospital admissions in the SW, if their rate was the same as NW.  Don't forget, we are told that SW has one of the lowest infection rates in the country.

I tested it a bit further and assumed that everyone in the NW was in the lowest risk category (5-17 years) where hospitalisation rates are 9x lower than the 18-29 figure - that gave an expected hospitalised number of 4482 in the SW, if the whole of that region is in the oldest category. 

More realistically but still flawed, I assumed that everyone in the NW was in the 18-29 class (the index class on the CDC data), and that gave an expected 498 hosp cases in the SW (still assuming that they are all 85+) based on the NW rates.

Btw, if we assume the same population distribution in the two regions, we would have expected 38 hospitalisations in the SW, based on NW rates.

From that (and congrats if you stayed with me), I conclude that there is something very odd about the NOIDS data in the SW. 

Top marks for effort in trying to understand the figures VikingVoyager. As always there is a but. You really need to factor in the predominant blood groups in the different areas as group O doesn't appear to be so susceptible to the virus. You will also need to factor in the ethnic make up of the two groups as ethnicity does appear to be a consideration but before you do that you will also need to decide whether the ethnicity factor is down to race or social living conditions. You will also need to know what proportion of students and others behave responsibly and what proportion don't. I fear you are trying to use a broad brush where there are far to many variables and unknowns.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Rattler43 said:

Top marks for effort in trying to understand the figures VikingVoyager. As always there is a but. You really need to factor in the predominant blood groups in the different areas as group O doesn't appear to be so susceptible to the virus. You will also need to factor in the ethnic make up of the two groups as ethnicity does appear to be a consideration but before you do that you will also need to decide whether the ethnicity factor is down to race or social living conditions. You will also need to know what proportion of students and others behave responsibly and what proportion don't. I fear you are trying to use a broad brush where there are far to many variables and unknowns.

All valid considerations and well beyond my constraints here! 

However, I am more satisfied than ever that there is something fishy in the SW NOIDs data. Age is by far the biggest determinant that I am aware of, and even that isn't anywhere near as skewed as I tried to make it in the tests I did earlier and yet, they couldn't replicate what the data said.  

As far as I'm concerned, it's just such a big outlier, it cant' make sense. I wonder if we'll ever find out why?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Rattler43 said:

Top marks for effort in trying to understand the figures VikingVoyager. As always there is a but. You really need to factor in the predominant blood groups in the different areas as group O doesn't appear to be so susceptible to the virus. You will also need to factor in the ethnic make up of the two groups as ethnicity does appear to be a consideration but before you do that you will also need to decide whether the ethnicity factor is down to race or social living conditions. You will also need to know what proportion of students and others behave responsibly and what proportion don't. I fear you are trying to use a broad brush where there are far to many variables and unknowns.

Wow amazing to both of you. Don't really understand what you are trying to do but do admire your attempt to understand the situation. 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 18/10/2020 at 11:36, VikingVoyager said:

It's an interesting theory, so I tested it on the week 39 data using the SW and the next worst region (the NW). 

For that week, there were 50 admissions across the NW, and 558 in the SW. 

Populations for the two regions are 734,000 and 562,000 according to figures I found.  Figures from the the US reckon that hospitalisation rates for Covid are 12 higher for the 85+ year group compared to the 18-29 group (there's a whole spectrum of rates in the link)

I started by assuming equal distribution by age in NW across the 9 age groups (not a good assumption but tested later).  I used this to come up with an average hospitalisation rate (0.0000017) that when adjusted for the CDC age band impacts gave the correct number of cases for the NW.

I then assumed that everyone in the SW was in the highest age group (e.g. 85+). Not a great assumption given that the SW includes Bristol, Plymouth and Exeter - all of which have universities but a good test of the theory.  

Even under this assumption - the figures show that there would have been only 123 hospital admissions in the SW, if their rate was the same as NW.  Don't forget, we are told that SW has one of the lowest infection rates in the country.

I tested it a bit further and assumed that everyone in the NW was in the lowest risk category (5-17 years) where hospitalisation rates are 9x lower than the 18-29 figure - that gave an expected hospitalised number of 4482 in the SW, if the whole of that region is in the oldest category. 

More realistically but still flawed, I assumed that everyone in the NW was in the 18-29 class (the index class on the CDC data), and that gave an expected 498 hosp cases in the SW (still assuming that they are all 85+) based on the NW rates.

Btw, if we assume the same population distribution in the two regions, we would have expected 38 hospitalisations in the SW, based on NW rates.

From that (and congrats if you stayed with me), I conclude that there is something very odd about the NOIDS data in the SW. 

Well done Viking Voyager, fine investigative rationale.

I'm interested in your population figures VV especially for the NW which includes Lancashire, Merseyside & Greater Manchester where 5.5 million people live.

Somerset must also be included in the SW where Weston Super Mare has rang their alarm bells in terms of hospital bed space on more than one occasion since the outbreak was taken seriously and the combined counties of Devon, Dorset, Cornwall, Somerset & Bristol have a population of 3.5m.

We must also consider lifestyle, areas of social deprivation and, uncomfortable as it is for many, culture and ethnicity.

The South West counties and those more central such as Wiltshire & Hampshire enjoy a higher standard of living, overall the population within the older age groups are healthier meaning that although in many instances it is the older age groups being admitted to hospital, their capacity for recovery and discharge is greater and the burden to provide mechanical intervention in a specialised bed is far less.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, jonno said:

I'm interested in your population figures

I used Wikipedia's figures for the English regions which are from the ONS are estimates for 2019.

The NW includes Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire (including it's metro type areas), Cheshire and Cumbria, while the SW is Devon, Cornwall, Somerset, Dorset, Wiltshire, Gloucestershire and all the metro-type areas around Bristol.

I must admit to having to look up a few of the Health Authorities and Universities when assigning them to a region and also that my mental map of Essex and Suffolk is very vague.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sky's scheme to charge £15.00 to watch a premiere league match seems somewhat flawed. Surely it will encourage one household to pay then invite all their mates round.

Newcastle fans according to reports (not verified) decided they would give the money they would have spent to watch to a local foodbank and raised over £20,000

Link to post
Share on other sites

FWIW, I get the following from the figures (I've colour coded them according to the three  tiers of the government 'system'):

Total hospital cases:

  1. 383    South West
  2. 60    North West
  3. 32    East Mids
  4. 7    North East
  5. 6    London
  6. 5    South East
  7. 4    West Mids
  8. 3    Yorkshire & the Humber
  9. 0    East of England
     

Hospital cases expressed as 1 in X of population (to the nearest 10,000):

  1. South West     10,000 
  2. North West     120,000 
  3. East Mids     150,000 
  4. North East     380,000 
  5. West Mids     1,480,000 
  6. London     1,490,000 
  7. Y & H     1,830,000 
  8. South East     1,840,000 
  9. East of England   no data

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...