Indeed trend but our actual numbers were still magnitudes lower than England. That made the odds forever in our favour 😉
To be fair, its not unusual to have numbers magnitudes lower than England.
England has the bestymost numbers ever! for a developed nation.
Every other country is looking at our successes. Must be true, Boris said so.
Indeed trend but our actual numbers were still magnitudes lower than England. That made the odds forever in our favour
IIRC at the height of this, and for a fair few weeks after, our daily deaths were fairly reflective of Englands, in terms of population, ie not far off 1/10th of their number?.
Quite. Scotland's figure's have been largely on a par with the UK average. A little better than England, worse than Wales and NI. Also up there with the worst of Europe, too (Somewhere around Spain and Belgium IIRC).
On a facts and figures front, in a slightly worrying trend it seems the daily death rate in the UK has stuck solid at around 130/day for about two weeks now.
On a facts and figures front, in a slightly worrying trend it seems the daily death rate in the UK has stuck solid at around 130/day for about two weeks now.
From https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/deaths
Latest 7 day average from 26 June - 117
7 day average from 2 weeks ago, 12 June - 164
And there is already a nasty racial element being brought into ‘conversation’ around Leicester as a city being first into ‘naughty boy’ lockdown
Knowing the apparently affected areas of Leicester through work, and the areas of Derby that were affected most when it was a hotspot, there are clearly social/cultural/demographic aspects that may be factors - as in the discussion about BAME death rates generally. I've not yet seen any "nasty racial" elements being bandied around though?
And there is already a nasty racial element being brought into ‘conversation’ around Leicester as a city being first into ‘naughty boy’ lockdown.
There is indeed a rather unpleasant racial undercurrent to this, from the usual 'blame the immigrants and brown people' idiots
It's a bit more complicated than that though. The demographics are that if you live in a poorer area, for all manner of reasons, you're far more likely to be infected. So we now have the case where, if there are to be more localised lockdowns, then they are pretty certain to be in poorer areas with large BAME populations, whereas leafier, whiter, middle-class areas will be unaffected.
I can't see any potential problems there, can you?
Was I being overly cynical to check who the MPs / voting preferences of Leicester as the first thing I did when I heard it was being locked down again? (Labour btw)
I haven't seen any solid numbers on how much worse it is in Leicester than anywhere else - is it the worse place in England for example? Does anyone have a link?
I can't help but think (whether it's true or not) that someone in the government has decided that they've got to show they're determined to stop Covid, and asked for a list of places that had higher levels, and then just picked the least tory one of them?
A bit like Alderaan?
I haven’t seen any solid numbers on how much worse it is in Leicester than anywhere else – is it the worse place in England for example? Does anyone have a link?
the government are not sharing the data
Leicester council were complaining that even tough Hancock said it was a hotspot 2 weeks ago the government wouldnt share with the LA which areas in particular were most effected
Theres a lot of centralised control freakery from government
From https://coronavirus-staging.data.gov.uk/deaths
Latest 7 day average from 26 June – 117
7 day average from 2 weeks ago, 12 June – 164
Hmm.
The Worldometers data I scraped looks slightly different. C'est la vie. Last two weeks of rolling averages I get are:
155 [15 Jun]
146
144
140
132
133
130
137
133
135
136
132
131 [27th Jun]
I haven’t seen any solid numbers on how much worse it is in Leicester than anywhere else – is it the worse place in England for example? Does anyone have a link?
Quite widely reported yesterday that Leicester accounts for 10% of infections in England in the last couple of weeks. For a city of around 330,000 people, that's significant.
I don't doubt that those numbers are serious enough to warrant a more stringent lockdown. I do wonder if it hasn't helped Boris look more decisive and "in charge" though to some of his wavering supporters.
I haven’t seen any solid numbers on how much worse it is in Leicester than anywhere else – is it the worse place in England for example? Does anyone have a link?
The official published stats are for confirmed cases, and there is a lag so don't show the current position - I believe this is based on 'from the ground' figures on both suspected and newly-confirmed cases only, which show a significant spike.
FWIW, the measures they've taken seem proportionate and realistic. We'll see if they work, and how quickly. And whether people looking forward to a beer in Leicester on Saturday just head off to Derby.
What was interesting was Hancock talking about how they'd already shut some factories and schools where there was evidence of spread. And that they'd closed one in Keighley, near me, at some other point, which came as a bit of a surprise...
A bit like Alderaan?
More like Jedha in Rogue One really.
And that they’d closed one in Keighley, near me, at some other point, which came as a bit of a surprise…
the Keighey thing was a hancockup
https://twitter.com/bradfordmdc/status/1277884089740206081
Idiot!
Interesting that disproportionate number of children infected in leicester too
I haven’t seen any solid numbers on how much worse it is in Leicester than anywhere else – is it the worse place in England for example? Does anyone have a link?
From BBC report,
'Mr Hancock said Leicester's seven-day infection rate of 135 cases per 100,000 people was "three times higher than the next highest city" and admissions to hospital were between six and 10 per day - compared to about one a day at other trusts.
He said "targeted action" at factories, workplaces and schools over the past 10 days had not worked, meaning stronger measures were needed.
"We've been taking this highly localised approach but unfortunately that targeted action wasn't working in Leicester and that's why we have taken this much broader measure," he said.'
Hmm.
The Worldometers data I scraped looks slightly different. C’est la vie. Last two weeks of rolling averages I get are:
That got me curious so I did a bit of comparison - Worldometer reports 280 deaths for 23rd June, UK Gov has 171 which is also the number given in the Twitter source linked to from Worldometer's UK update for 23rd June.
Worldometer error in your favour.
Collect £100.
This is the first time I've posted on this thread, having read most of it.
I'm just inside the red zone, by about half a mile ish. I'll comply with the new rules, like I have all the way through but I'm utterly dejected with it to be honest. I know there are far more people worse off than me but I've been sat at my desk all morning not being able to work thinking about being able to do very little again 🙁
What I can't work out, is with our 'world class' track and trace system, is why a smaller area hasn't been identified earlier and locked down in a similar way. They've been talking about the Leicester issue for 11 days and numbers going back nearly a month!
Slight rant over, sorry!
Sorry to hear that Sam, chin up buddy.
Thanks Greg, first Lakes trip since it all kicked off was supposed to be on the 12th, that won't be happening now. And accommodation in the weeks after looks non existent.
[DomCum]Just use your common sense and do it, if you've not been exposed to a potential infection source for a week beforehand you're very unlikley to have the virus. Unless you're one of the little people, in which case stay at home, prole[/DomCum]
Having re-read that, it's actaully more sensible than what Dom ****ings did...
Sorry to hear you're caught up in this.
Out of interest, what's your experience and views as to why Leicester has had this problem?
I’ve not yet seen any “nasty racial” elements being bandied around though?
Chats between colleagues who have been in the office and one or two 'nudge-nudge' Facebook posts. Nothing overt, obvs.
@MoreCashThanDash to be honest I don't know, I think you may have touched on some of the reasons on the previous page which would make sense.
@dannyh would probably put it much better than me, he only lives 5 ish miles away from me. fortunately for him out side the red zone so he'll still be enjoying tomorrow nights bike ride!
Quite. Scotland’s figure’s have been largely on a par with the UK average. A little better than England, worse than Wales and NI. Also up there with the worst of Europe, too (Somewhere around Spain and Belgium IIRC).
According to the govt:
England 287 cases/100,000 people
NI 259
Scotland 291
Wales 501
IIRC at the height of this, and for a fair few weeks after, our daily deaths were fairly reflective of Englands, in terms of population, ie not far off 1/10th of their number
Yes normalised data wise.
But lower absolute number coupled with a more sparse populous stacked the odds in our favour.
Can’t book for august 1st yet Colin, only the next 2 weeks is available on a rolling basis, you’ll need to wait til around the end of July.
Yeah. I saw that. Can't really plan much on that basis. Still, by August we might even be allowed to see MiL in the nursing home.
Mr monk - workdometers data always has outliers that make no sense. That 280 deaths on the 23 June skews the figures. Look on the data feed under the graph for 23 Jun and it explains 100+ extra old deaths included that day.
Use the gov.uk Covid tracker for better data. It also shows positive tests by specimen data, revealing the actual daily cases at 200 ish, rather than the 1000+ reported in the figures, which includes test results of specimens as far back as March!
@dannyh would probably put it much better than me, he only lives 5 ish miles away from me. fortunately for him out side the red zone so he’ll still be enjoying tomorrow nights bike ride!
What Sam means is I frequently have bouts of verbal diarrhoea.
Reasons for Leicester being a hotspot right now?
To be honest, I'm not sure (but how could I be).
I would put forward a few theories, but that is all they are:
Tight knit communities within the city. I would suspect the proportion of households with 3-4 generations under the same roof is as high as anywhere in the country.
Bridgen (I used to spit on the ground at the mention of that name, but it is unhygienic) may have a point about dodgy knock off garment factories. If you are employed by a dodgy employer they aren't going to give a shit about safety.
Houses in Multiple Occupancy are prevalent in the city. Possibly linked to iffy employers.
Not masses of outdoor space in the surrounding areas so there are major daytripper hotspots just outside Leicester.
See, told you he'd have better ideas than me 🙂
See, told you he’d have better ideas than me
It doesn't make them right, though!
FWIW I reckon there will be a significant number of nobheads who think "**** it, I'm off for a pint" over the weekend and drive out into surrounding villages and towns.
Leicester is 600,000 give or take. If 1% are nobheads then that is 6,000 nobheads potentially breaking the rules and heading in my direction!
Might as well get a pint in while out testing your eyesight.
this is what leicester council were complaining about
https://twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1277960119611871234
What's pillar 2 then? Going by the pillar 2 data, Leicester isn't so much in a 2nd wave, but still in a huge 1st wave.
That 280 thing in the worldometer data was when the govt slipped another 100 deaths back into the "historic" figures rather than the daily value. I don't know where the extra 100 deaths came from but they were distributed over the past several months whereas the daily values are usually mostly within the past few days.
Pillar 1 carried out in PHE labs and should be hospital patients & staff
Pillar 2 in the privatecentres set up in MK, including machines theyve taken from universities (we kinda want ours back now) and should be public, key workers & families
The government arent explaining what is done where on who
making it very hard for Local authorities to fiure out where their problems are
tho Cummings mates at Palatir & Faculty are given this data to model the pandemic, but its not shared with LAs, GPs, even local MPs
Thanks Kimbers.
That 280 thing in the worldometer data was when the govt slipped another 100 deaths back into the “historic” figures rather than the daily value.
thanks captain, that explains all
worldometers have previously done periodic cleanups after these bonus drops have happened
And, what NBITF said, that data for Leicester looks problematic. Of course in typical Boris Administration style, we essentially don't have the faintest idea of what any given person is supposed to do because of the "local lockdown" - apart from not get their hair cut and not send the kids to school. Everyone will be straight to a pub outside the city limits come Saturday.
How on earth can local responses be properly planned and explained to the public (so that they accept them) locally (remember, no national daily briefing now) if kept only in the centralised system?!?
You use the words "properly planned" as if they are a concept this administration gives a flying chuff about.
Two words, minister, "plausible deniability".
Death levels now back to normal?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-53233066
Now i'm not going to suggest that the virus has gone away, but are the people now dying from this the ones who would have probably died of some other disease in this period?
Not necessarily. It could easily be completely different people. The social distancing measures may have reduced (as well as in some cases adding to) deaths by all sorts of unrelated causes. You can't simplistically say that the people dying of this Coronavirus now would have been dying now anyway, far from it.
Yes, all-cause mortality is back to historic baseline. I use ten-year mean. There are a couple of outliers (45-64 and 65-75), but the numbers are now modest. The question now is whether they will dip below baseline (subjects would have died anyway) or remain above (life expectancy has fallen). Personally, I suspect the former.
Proportion of positive tests is what really matters in pillar 1 and 2 data. I have some analyses of lower tier authority data that identified Leicestershire as a hot spot, but there are others.
Proportion of positive tests is what really matters in pillar 1 and 2 data.
Is that proportion of tests, or proportion of people tested?