Weekly rate in Sunderland is 4 per 100,000 people



Pseudonym Number 1 said:
Local lock down incoming.

www.sunderlandecho.com

Sunderland's weekly coronavirus rate more than doubles from 1.4 to 4.0 - but no new cases are linked to pub closures

The rate of infection of the coronavirus on Wearside has risen in the last week, following an alert caused by a drinker going to pubs with the virus.
www.sunderlandecho.com www.sunderlandecho.com
Click to expand...

That isn’t the R.

The 4 refers to 4 recorded new cases of COVID, per 100,000 of the resident population, in the past week.

It isn’t impossible but I’d consider it unlikely that Sunderland is placed into local lockdown on the basis of this alone - if the 11 new cases cause new outbreaks then that might cause a problem.
 
Last edited:
Definitely Maybe said:
Was going to say, am I missing something? Also I thought the national average per 100k was 5 and the likes of Burnley and Bradford were 25 so we're surely miles off a local lockdown?
Click to expand...

There’s a load of confusion because the govt haven’t really explained what any of these statistics mean...but also I can’t see many people tuning in to an epidemiology lecture for the 5pm briefing.

R, variants of R, rates, hazard ratios, age standardisation, mortality rates, case fatality rates, are alien to most people and the govt should have invested in informing people what these things mean.

That’s no sleight on the OP either mind.

Some kindly moderator has changed the thread title now :lol:
 
Last edited:
Pseudonym Number 1 said:
Might as well delete the thread, rather than edit it to twist my words.
Not scaremongering at all, just sharing a poorly worded Echo report.
Click to expand...
There was nothing wrong with the Echo report IMO.

The report didn't mention the R rate you did. The report didn't mention a lockdown you did.

Perhaps it was more attention seeking than scaremongering?
 
Keith S30S said:
There was nothing wrong with the Echo report IMO.

The report didn't mention the R rate you did. The report didn't mention a lockdown you did.

Perhaps it was more attention seeking than scaremongering?
Click to expand...
Sunderland's weekly coronavirus rate more than doubles from 1.4 to 4.0

Taken from the headline in the echo. Clearly I've misunderstood what that means, easy mistake to make.
 
Frijj said:
There’s a load of confusion because the govt haven’t really explained what any of these statistics mean...but also I can’t see many people tuning in to an epidemiology lecture for the 5pm briefing.

R, variants of R, rates, hazard ratios, age standardisation, mortality rates, case fatality rates, are alien to most people and the govt should have invested in informing people what these things mean.

That’s no sleight on the OP either mind.

Some kindly moderator has changed the thread title now :lol:
Click to expand...
Media hysteria and Facebook bullshit doesn't help either.
Pseudonym Number 1 said:
Sunderland's weekly coronavirus rate more than doubles from 1.4 to 4.0

Taken from the headline in the echo. Clearly I've misunderstood what that means, easy mistake to make.
Click to expand...
Our lass read the article last night and made exactly the same mistake.
 
Last edited:
Botchie said:
Media hysteria and Facebook bullshit doesn't help either.

Our lass read the article last night and made exactly the same mistake.
Click to expand...
Cheers, I think.

If the headline said cases instead of rate it would be a lot clearer and people wouldn't be making that mistake, but then the echo wouldn't be getting the clicks.
 
Last edited:

Back
Top