Conversation The Forum
Helper icon Helpers: Chris2mates , LLstill , PrincessFruitBat

About us

Midsummer's Eve is a free online dating community - based around friendship, real meetups, real people, and real relationships. We've been online since 1999 and have twice won Radio 2's Web Site of the Day award. So why not join us for free and join in the discussion?

Never shown on the normal daily briefing

Different anyway.

SQL  Male  Devon
21-May-2020 16:29 Message #4780418
I find some of the graphs/graphics shown each day on the Covid-19 daily briefings misleading.

A set of data I found recently on the ONS website. It reveals something odd and doesn't seem to be related to the 'R' value.

URL to follow.

SQL  Male  Devon
21-May-2020 16:30 Message #4780419

It shows my area to be comparatively safe, although the local 'R' value is high.

BOYDEL  Male  Surrey
21-May-2020 16:41 Message #4780422
Devon I guess is deemed in one sense safe as in absolute terms there may be few with infection given the low population, though per capita the rate may be high.

In stark contrast Greater London has around 30 times the population density - exacerbated by around 4 million daily commuters in normal times.

It is crucial of course that CV data is reported using very precise terms which leave no room for confusion or misinterpretation.
Aely  Female  Hampshire
21-May-2020 17:55 Message #4780426
I just tried the link and the ONS website says it doesn't exist!
Aely  Female  Hampshire
21-May-2020 22:03 Message #4780451
Ok, Did a search and found what you were probably referring to. Looks like this (Rushmoor) is a "quiet" area for the disease, as I had suspected. No Covid deaths until "week 13" when there was 1, in hospital. Then 3 and 4 hospital deaths in 14 and 15. the last tally, week 16 (May 8th) there were 5 hospital deaths, 2 Hospice and, sadly, one in a care home. This is a Dormitory town for London, a lot of commuters in normal times, so it could have been a lot worse.
Jeff  Male  East Sussex
21-May-2020 22:36 Message #4780452

An excellent point in the website that you referred to is that a box showed "Did you find this page easy to understand?". Replying "No" led to further questions including "How should we improve this page?", to which I replied "Some of the charts didn't show data in an easily understood way, e.g. in figure 1 putting the COVID-19 to the right of Nlot involving COVID-19, whereas separate bars would be clearer."

There is a subtle relationship between the number of cases and the R (or R0) value.
For example, which is safer:
(a) A very large number of cases and a small R (or R0) value, or
(b) A very low number of cases and a large R (or R0) value?
Other factors are also involved.

I don't know enough about the subject to answer my question, even with specified numbers.
However, I know that the government's equation for COVID Alert level is nonsensical. But some people don't care about that. See some posts in thread "Lockdown Morons"

BOYDEL: "It is crucial of course that CV data is reported using very precise terms which leave no room for confusion or misinterpretation."

I agree. The definitions of R and R0 aren't too technical for most people to understand.
SQL  Male  Devon
22-May-2020 10:57 Message #4780499
I think some may be looking at a different page, the page I am looking at is on the '' website and the main heading is:

Deaths involving COVID-19 by local area and socioeconomic deprivation: deaths occurring between 1 March and 17 April 2020

The chart/figure of interest to me is Fig. 2, (London had the highest age-standardised mortality rate of deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19)) about 25% down the page (it's a long page).

It shows deaths per 100,000 head of population. There are other parts of the same page giving other insights - look for the "Middle Layer Super Output Areas" if you want a detailed breakdown of deaths by area.

Jeff  Male  East Sussex
22-May-2020 11:54 Message #4780515
SQL: "t reveals something odd and doesn't seem to be related to the 'R' value."

That webpage and its figure 2 don't mention R Effective Reproduction ratio (or number) or R0 Basic Reproduction ratio (or number). The word "rate" does not refer to R or R0, and nor should it refer to them.

At a specified area and time, a large value of R or R0, (e.g. 15), can very easily lead to a large number of COVID-19 cases (e.g. 10,000) and COVID-19 deaths (e.g. 1,000). So you might think that they go together.

But it is more complicated than that. For example:-
(a) If in an area (however that is defined) nearly everyone has the disease, then there could be a very low R or R0 value.
(b) A brief influx of tourists whose R or R0 is not measured can change the measured number of COVID-19 cases a week or two later and COVID-19 deaths after that.
(I haven't looked up these 2 points, so if I'm wrong then please correct me.)

Some think that each area should have different rules for lockdown. But if that is done, then many people from areas with a high COVID Alert level, (however that is calculated), will move into an area with a low COVID Alert level, changing the low to a high. There would be much confusion.

 Back to top

 Help with conversations