Author Topic: Covid stats, who do we believe  (Read 341 times)

Offline Bee

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,734
    • View Profile
Covid stats, who do we believe
« on: Friday 18 December 20 22:45 GMT (UK) »
I've just watched the local news on the BBC and according to them the rate of infection is 156 per 100,000 but if I check on the BBC website and look for my region (East Yorkshire) then the rate is 140 per 100,00, just who do you believe.
Dinsdale, Ellis, Gee, Goldsmith,Green,Hawks,Holmes,  Lacey, Longhorn, Pickersgill, Quantrill,Tuthill, Tuttle & Walker,  in E & W Yorks, Lincs, Norfolk & Suffolk. Census information is Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

guest189040

  • Guest
Re: Covid stats, who do we believe
« Reply #1 on: Friday 18 December 20 23:06 GMT (UK) »
None of them.

I have no doubt that ONS uses every data gathering tool at their disposal and sophisticated mathematical modelling to provide as reliable a set of statistics as they can.

That said there are so many potential errors that can creep into the data and as the algorithms are run any iterative process involved in the modelling and computation could itself introduce errors.

Just think about how many people may have had or are having some symptoms but have not sought out any test or medical assistance hence they will not be included in any statistics.

Next, deaths, what does the BBC report? 

X number deaths of people who have tested positive in the last 28 days.

Now just how many have died who have not had a Covid test?

Here comparative statistics against previous years can impact upon the reporting.

To paraphrase Captain Barbosa from The Pirates of the Caribbean ..... they are guidelines.

Our Daughter (a Nurse) had Covid, her Husband got it and had far worst symptoms (a man always suffers more), her son got mild symptoms, and her daughter, nothing.  Now has her daughter had Covid, who knows?  Is she going to get Covid? My guess would be unlikely.

My suggestion would be to keep abreast of the info, but add on a sizeable percentage for error.

The best advice we could give is to keep your guard up and maintain your own precautions until such times as c28 days have elapsed after the second received dose of the Covid vaccine.


Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,251
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Covid stats, who do we believe
« Reply #2 on: Saturday 19 December 20 10:53 GMT (UK) »
I've just watched the local news on the BBC and according to them the rate of infection is 156 per 100,000 but if I check on the BBC website and look for my region (East Yorkshire) then the rate is 140 per 100,00, just who do you believe.

I suspect they are using 2 different areas eg one using whole of Yorkshire and the website dividing into smaller areas. Or some other division.  I know we have a different system in Scotland, we have healthboards rather than trusts but our local paper switches between quoting infection rates for the healthboard area and our LA area. In our case the healthboard covers 3 LA areas.

edit: Or the figures refer to 2 different days, with one being more up to date than the other.  Our infection rate expressed that way changes daily.
Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others


Online Mike in Cumbria

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,558
    • View Profile
Re: Covid stats, who do we believe
« Reply #3 on: Saturday 19 December 20 12:31 GMT (UK) »
The actual figure isn't massively important. You wouldn't act differently depending on whether there are 140 or 156 cases per hundred thousand. What really matters is the trend in the data - is it going up or down in different areas, and how quickly.
"No vegetable grows in vain.."

Offline iluleah

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,800
  • Zeya who has a plastic bag fetish
    • View Profile
Re: Covid stats, who do we believe
« Reply #4 on: Saturday 19 December 20 12:36 GMT (UK) »
Are each using the same area or county? Which is the most recent/updated figures? The important thing is numbers only gve you a clue if they are rising, falling or remaining the same.
Leicestershire:Chamberlain, Dakin, Wilkinson, Moss, Cook, Welland, Dobson, Roper,Palfreman, Squires, Hames, Goddard, Topliss, Twells,Bacon.
Northamps:Sykes, Harris, Rice,Knowles.
Rutland:Clements, Dalby, Osbourne, Durance, Smith,Christian, Royce, Richardson,Oakham, Dewey,Newbold,Cox,Chamberlaine,Brow, Cooper, Bloodworth,Clarke
Durham/Yorks:Woodend, Watson,Parker, Dowser
Suffolk/Norfolk:Groom, Coleman, Kemp, Barnard, Alden,Blomfield,Smith,Howes,Knight,Kett,Fryston
Lincolnshire:Clements, Woodend

Offline pharmaT

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,251
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Covid stats, who do we believe
« Reply #5 on: Saturday 19 December 20 12:36 GMT (UK) »
The actual figure isn't massively important. You wouldn't act differently depending on whether there are 140 or 156 cases per hundred thousand. What really matters is the trend in the data - is it going up or down in different areas, and how quickly.

Oh I don't the only thing that changes is my degree of worry and feelings of despair as I see the numbers steadily climbing while I see people meet up more and more, wear a mask less and less, don't give others space in the shop and basically ignore the existence of an issue.  TBH the experience of this year as really sickened me of people in general and I cannot see me ever going back to going out and socialising, ever.
Campbell, Dunn, Dickson, Fell, Forest, Norie, Pratt, Somerville, Thompson, Tyler among others

Offline Viktoria

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,986
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Covid stats, who do we believe
« Reply #6 on: Saturday 19 December 20 15:17 GMT (UK) »
There is a great degree of blind ignorance too, and a set mindset.
Two ladies in TV each stated categorically that they  could not get a Corona Virus, nor anything else because of their religious beliefs, had I had a huge family Bible to hand I would have hurled it at theT.V.!
The worry now is the mutation/s, and the speed with which it is mutating.
I am staying at home by myself for Christmas, many reasons ,not least is that I have had hospital and Dr’s visits and my daughter with whom I would be staying has only had one B12 injection since the start of this ,she must be at a very low ebb ,but soldiers on having a business and loyal employees to think about.
Just on the radio news ,possibility The S.E, will go into Tier FOUR!!!
She is Suffolk , Tier two. but it is widening.

I do hope everyone keeps safe and well ,those facing ops etc, best wishes for a good recovery and that people in general are sensible ,not selfish.

I am sure I have grown taller, it must be through being in the dark, it makes rhubarb grow!
Rhubarb is what I speak a lot of the time!
No, the days are so dull , and dark before four O’Clock,  if I were a plant I would have grown.Cheerio and a warm, peaceful Christmas to you all.
Viktoria.