Chit Chat
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
You were like a dog with a bone yesterday regarding the figure of 315 deaths that was announced for the UK yesterday, your unease largely resulting from the earlier release of a figure of 327 from NHS England.
If you add the individual figures released for the four home nations during the course of yesterday, you arrive at a figure of : 327 + 12 + 14 +5 = 358
Of course, the figure of 358 is lower than the figure of 315, hence your suspicion, further fuelled by the fact that the NHS England figure is for hospitals only.
But let's look at similar figures for Saturday. Here we had 370 + 44 + 44 + 11 = 469 reported separately.
However, the total UK figure was reported as 621.
So, on some days the total UK figure is higher than the four individual figures released on that day, whilst on some days it is lower.
Now, you will correctly point to the fact that there is no separate figure released for the daily deaths occurring in England outside of hospitals.
However, I can assure you that we had similar differences prior to the change on 29 April for the released UK wide figure to include deaths in all settings.
I am unable to perform a full reconciliation, insufficient data and clarifications on the compilation methods for data is available, but I can demonstrate some of the lagging factors that are creating these apparent daily anomalies.
I'm probably going to quickly regret having started this thread, but here we go anyway.
If you add the individual figures released for the four home nations during the course of yesterday, you arrive at a figure of : 327 + 12 + 14 +5 = 358
Of course, the figure of 358 is lower than the figure of 315, hence your suspicion, further fuelled by the fact that the NHS England figure is for hospitals only.
But let's look at similar figures for Saturday. Here we had 370 + 44 + 44 + 11 = 469 reported separately.
However, the total UK figure was reported as 621.
So, on some days the total UK figure is higher than the four individual figures released on that day, whilst on some days it is lower.
Now, you will correctly point to the fact that there is no separate figure released for the daily deaths occurring in England outside of hospitals.
However, I can assure you that we had similar differences prior to the change on 29 April for the released UK wide figure to include deaths in all settings.
I am unable to perform a full reconciliation, insufficient data and clarifications on the compilation methods for data is available, but I can demonstrate some of the lagging factors that are creating these apparent daily anomalies.
I'm probably going to quickly regret having started this thread, but here we go anyway.
Show More
Ok, let's start with the UK wide figure which is available from https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Let's add up the cumulative four home nations figures : 25,528 + 376 + 1,559 + 983 = 28,446
So, this appears all find and dandy.
However, it immediately demonstrates one lag in reporting as the figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are one day in arrears of the figures released from both of these countries.
Scotland reported 1,571 and Northern Ireland 381.
Now, I don't know why this should be, but there will be a reasonable administrative reason.
So, just accept it for what it is, an administrative delay.
Let's add up the cumulative four home nations figures : 25,528 + 376 + 1,559 + 983 = 28,446
So, this appears all find and dandy.
However, it immediately demonstrates one lag in reporting as the figures for Scotland and Northern Ireland are one day in arrears of the figures released from both of these countries.
Scotland reported 1,571 and Northern Ireland 381.
Now, I don't know why this should be, but there will be a reasonable administrative reason.
So, just accept it for what it is, an administrative delay.
Now, we'll look at a further example of administrative delays and that is in the daily reporting provided by NHS England.
On Sunday, they reported a figure of 327 for the 24 hour period up to 5pm 2 May.
However, the actual dates of death were in a range going back as far as 28 March, 224 from 30 April to 2 May.
Again, I don't have the details of the administrative process that they require to go through before they include a death in their reported figures, and I really don't need to know the details. I just need to appreciate that an admin process does exist.
On Sunday, they reported a figure of 327 for the 24 hour period up to 5pm 2 May.
However, the actual dates of death were in a range going back as far as 28 March, 224 from 30 April to 2 May.
Again, I don't have the details of the administrative process that they require to go through before they include a death in their reported figures, and I really don't need to know the details. I just need to appreciate that an admin process does exist.
And then we have another source of data, the Office for National Statistics providing data for weekly death registrations, recently adjusted to include information related to COVID-19.
Looking at their publicly available data, we are provided with further evidence of differences in reporting provided by different bodies as a result of these bodies observing their individual administrative processes.
Note that up-to-date counts of the total numbers of deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) are published by Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) on the .GOV.UK website. ONS figures differ from the DHSC counts as the latter include deaths which have not yet been registered.
So, would it be convenient for us mug punters if all reporting bodies followed an identical reporting process ?
Yes it would, but they don't, so learn to live with it.
It would also have been very convenient for you if the payroll department didn't operate a cut off on all of your welding overtime hours included in your weekly / monthly pay packet for all of those years, but they did.
Despite all of the advances in technology over the years, "real time" reporting isn't what it is cracked up to be.
No matter how well designed a system and associated processes are, at some point human involvement is required.
i's need to be dotted, t's need to be crossed, checks and balances are performed, delays ensue, people get hot under the collar, but life goes on.
Looking at their publicly available data, we are provided with further evidence of differences in reporting provided by different bodies as a result of these bodies observing their individual administrative processes.
Note that up-to-date counts of the total numbers of deaths involving coronavirus (COVID-19) are published by Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) on the .GOV.UK website. ONS figures differ from the DHSC counts as the latter include deaths which have not yet been registered.
So, would it be convenient for us mug punters if all reporting bodies followed an identical reporting process ?
Yes it would, but they don't, so learn to live with it.
It would also have been very convenient for you if the payroll department didn't operate a cut off on all of your welding overtime hours included in your weekly / monthly pay packet for all of those years, but they did.
Despite all of the advances in technology over the years, "real time" reporting isn't what it is cracked up to be.
No matter how well designed a system and associated processes are, at some point human involvement is required.
i's need to be dotted, t's need to be crossed, checks and balances are performed, delays ensue, people get hot under the collar, but life goes on.
All the above is based on the assumption that the 'official' figures are accurate .
They're not !
They're not !
Of course they are not accurate Reynard, the entire world is conspiring against you and me.
But no need to be concerned eh, you are on the case and I'm sure that you'll get is sorted in double quick time
But no need to be concerned eh, you are on the case and I'm sure that you'll get is sorted in double quick time
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539