Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Confused52

Why has Warrington got more infections per head than London?

Recommended Posts

If you look here https://www.centreforcities.org/coronavirus/#wherein

you will see the confirmed cases per 100 000 head of population for towns and cities in England and Wales. On 22 April the figures for Warrington was 237. On the same day the figure for London was 224.

Other places in England worse than Warrington were:

Birmingham, 228, Luton 256, Liverpool 260, Birkenhead 262, Newcastle 266, Sheffield 270, Sunderland 270

and a day in earlier in Wales - Cardiff 407, Newport 327 and Swansea 368.

Milton Keyes our New Town partner is at just 150.

What is Warrington doing wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Statistics and damned lies as they say. It depends whether you're looking at cases in total or per size of population. Warrington has less than 500 cases in total whereas London has over 27000. Tower Hamlets, with only slightly larger population, has 578 cases.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#local-authorities

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, asperity said:

Statistics and damned lies as they say. It depends whether you're looking at cases in total or per size of population. Warrington has less than 500 cases in total whereas London has over 27000. Tower Hamlets, with only slightly larger population, has 578 cases.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/#local-authorities

Well what I listed was "confirmed cases per 100 000 head of population". So the numbers are comparable.

After lockdown +6 days London and the rest of the country should have been on a similar downward curve because that is what social distancing does, it turns big towns into what appear as small towns as regards social mixing. London had a two week lead on growing cases so it is very odd that we should have more cases pero head of population that they do.

This is the latest positive test data for Warrington it seems to have strange spikes what are they caused by?

WRGT_positives.thumb.png.664f2c53fea09c27fe8ea975280d3206.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the numbers for Warrington and Tower Hamlets (in London, chosen at random from all the London boroughs) are comparable, so what's the problem?

Actually I'm getting a bit peeved with all the negativity around. The tiny bit of news I see on the BBC while I'm waiting for the weather forecast (which is also presented somewhat negatively by the BBC for some reason) all seems to be people complaining that their life isn't perfect. Hey! Newsflash! Life isn't perfect, just get on with it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Observer II said:

Who's doings all these "tests" in Warrington ?    Sounds like we should have herd immunity by now !    😷

I give in, the numbers are from the official numbers of Public Health England, the dates are the date of the swab test and the numbers are the quantity of positives where the subjects address lies in the Borough of Warrington. The source of number in the Centre for Cities graphs is the same source, PHE, but a day earlier for England and two days earlier for Wales. 

If you look at the bar chart you will see that it looks like there are two trajectories for the fall in numbers as well as looking as if the measurement starting from 8th April look strangely high (or low) for a naturally decaying infection, the graph is just too jerky. All I want is to be able to know how to interpret data to asses what risks I am prepared to take. I don't see the point in criticising I just want to understand the facts that I am given.

This leads to a doubt about the comparison in the Cities report. Sheffield Council say their rate seems higher than expected because they are doing more testing but there is no hint about what is happening here. Depending on which set of points one believes the infection rate here in Warrington could be either much higher than it was at lockdown or about the same. When considering what to do about life in general and considering risk it is a significant point. 

Herd immunity sarcasm doesn't help me understand anything.  With the benefit of the back of a metaphorical fag packet and some wild assed guessing: if 50% are asymptomatic and 20% get it seriously but only half of those get admitted to hospital and are tested we get the total infections in Warrington are approx. 500x2x5x2= 5000 out of a population of 210000. So about 2.5% of the population have had an infection, so nowhere near herd immunity with its minimum of 60%. So 97.5% of us are still susceptible. Even more are susceptible in Greece although I don't see why it matters.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lot of "ifs" in that - how many people were actually tested in total out of a population of around 200,000 ?   So presumably a sample from which they make projections and conclusions.    😷

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Apparently, treatment in Warrington Hospital is turning a very positive corner with the use of modified  CPAP sleep apnea machines to keep airways open on patients & is helping patients to fight the virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Observer II said:

Lot of "ifs" in that - how many people were actually tested in total out of a population of around 200,000 ?   So presumably a sample from which they make projections and conclusions.    😷

You appear not to be reading properly today, I hope you are OK. It was not a random sample test, it was the number treated in hospital and tested positive. Well that is what the 497 which I approximated to 500 was meant to be. The extrapolation to a number infected was a guess by me using that ratios that are generally bandied about and work out to 10 infections per tested infected individual. The random testing of a sample would have to include non-infected people that is not what these numbers are about. My problem is that I don't believe they are actually a series of numbers from a single method because they are too different day to day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So there are things that we know we know.

There are things that we don't know we know but we know we  know we don't know them.

There are things that we don't know we don't know but we don't know we don't know.

And then there is conspiracists which say that we don't know we don't know but really we do know and the government hushed it up but my mate in the pub told he got it from fred the delivery guy who got it from a reliable source of his cousin who works at a pub in washington and overheard it from two guys discussing the cia in the bar .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

image.thumb.png.930ff4161a51e22c084494993ebfdaa2.png

 

This is the seven day moving average of new cases in the WBC area up until yesterday. So the question is where are the extra cases being found because they seem to pre-date any easing?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to put another fly in the ointment - we had mass testing in Warrington with a drive-thru facility - but none of these tests are included in the Warrington figures and will be just added to the national figures. Also most people who have had it, got it or going to get it, will not even be tested for some time yet. So the information we are getting is a very rough guide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gary,

Looking at the notes for the COBR presentation the data that government gives out includes Pillar 1 and 2 cases so the cause of the flattening could be Care Home staff and families, in which case it should flatten out in a week or so and resume a downward trajectory. To be clear the numbers in the graph are those from Public Health England and will be very different from the hospital figures. To get a sense of what is happening we really need a set of data where the thing being measured is the same every day so the constant changing and in some cases not publishing data regularly is unhelpful for the analysis of risk. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...