Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
21 May 20
22:22
Joined:
Date Joined:
10 Jan 02
According to a government sample.
Yet only Brent in London features in the top 10 worst affected areas per confirmed cases in the UK per 100,000. Can't get up to date death figures but it doesn't tally with that either.
So which figures are BS?
Yet only Brent in London features in the top 10 worst affected areas per confirmed cases in the UK per 100,000. Can't get up to date death figures but it doesn't tally with that either.
So which figures are BS?
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 11
|
By:
How can anyone believe any of the tissue of blatant lies and the inertia from this govt and their funding dependent "scientists"?
|
|
By:
Maybe they are doing a cover up and when it comes out will say it was due to "patient confidentiality"?
Can't think where I've got the idea a poltician might do that. |
|
By:
6 London boroughs in the top 20.
|
|
By:
I believe absolutely none of this . It's all absolute lies .
|
|
By:
most of the confirmed cases are recent that's why ...Brent was ages ago
|
|
By:
The government sample is all cases as of now. If it was ages ago it might stack up, but it isn't.
I don't doubt the figure in London is higher than the average of the rest of the country, but 78% of people in the UK live in urban areas. The most popuklous cities such as the likes of Sheffield, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, Leeds, Sunderland, Middlesborough, Wolverhampton are just as bad if not worse than London, so it just doesn't stack up. Few locations have fewer than half London cases, and of those that do, they are virtually all rural. Something like 14% London and 10% rest of UK would stack up with confirmed cases. |
|
By:
Unless we suppose that London has a far lower death rate and much lower testing than the rest of the UK. Not quite sure how that stacks up with the high number of BAME in London and their supposed higher death rates.
|
|
By:
There's no way the sampling is good enough to produce an accurate result. 1000 people, so what 250 in London? So 43 positive. Not sure how you cover all ages, races, gender, occupations, settings, prosperity, religions etc in a sample of 250. It's worthwhile but nothing more than a snapshot.
|
|
By:
Most of these ONS figures are being calculated using population data that is nearly a decade old, which will be well out of date. Not an insignificant issue in statistics.
|
|
By:
Indeed Cider, next years census should produce some truly spectacular 'amendments' in official figures of how many are living in these islands...
 |
|
By:
10%-20% is likely enough for herd immunity given the massive numbers that are immune without having the anti-bodies.
Job done. Lets get the young healthy people back out immediately. |