https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54250626 What am I missing....

BBC article above gives reasons for why the North has more tier 3 zones than South stating positive cases per 100,000 are much higher. Fair enough I thought until the same article stated that the hot spots may be there because of more testing in certain areas. Hang on!! The implication there is that they are using Trump statistics i.e. "the more we test the more positives we get and the worse we look" type of stats are being applied.

So does the positives per 100,000 " mean positives per 100,000 population or 100,000 tests?
If the former then the number of tests distorts the figures and makes them nonsensical .

THE most important stat to determine if the measures to eliminate virus is working is to look at the number of positives in a given number of tests as a percentage. So if that percentage is falling then the measures are working- It is obvious if you test 100000 people in one area (A) you will end up with a far higher number of positives than if you test 10000 people in another area (B) . Total number of positives put area A in Tier 3 and area B in Tier two. Using the percentage of positives in a given number of tests it could be that A and B are the same infection rate e.g. 30% of those tested return positive.
If that is how they are calculating it then fine but that means either the BBC reporters have got it wrong or I have misunderstood what they are saying.
Can anyone explain ?
EDIT Here the total number of positive cases has increased (the Headlines!! ) which looked bad but was in line with increased testing. Digging down yoiu could see though In the same period the % of those tested that were positive went DOWN from 33% to 25% which means the measures are working

 

I agree that there are a lot of bad statistical analyses going on, but equally a drop in the percentage of positive results does not necessarily mean measures are working. When you expand testing from symptomatic people to include more asymptomatic people the positive rate is inevitably going to drop even though the virus could conceivably also be spreading further in that period.

Mass testing of asymptomatic people presents other issues, particularly the fact that depending on the actual underlying prevalence of the virus a majority of positive results from asymptomatic people can be false. A test with a false positive rate of 0.6% does not mean that a positive result is 99.4% to be correct.

I think that results from people presenting with and without symptoms should not be bundled together, and should be analysed separately as it will be a lot easier to extract meaningful data and trends.

 

I think I’ve read the article you’ve referred to. And it does say positivity rate is a factor, to avoid the issue of more tests giving false impression in comparison with other areas
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/54250626

“In North West and North East England, about 10% of tests done on the public are coming back positive (double the figure of a month ago), while in the South East and South West, it is under 7%.”

 

OK thanks for that. I didn't think even the UK Govt could have got it that wrong. IMO though it should really be one of the main factors not just a factor in determining Tier ratings

Those figures incidentally are very low in comparison to the figures here which implies that mass general testing like drive throughs etc are not happening here as much as in the UK. Hardly surprising given there are far less people around to test so only people suspected of being positive or showing sign of Covid are being tested. 1 in 3 or even 1 in 4 is scarily high otherwise!

 

Think again then!

 

Don't know whether to or . Its a mess. Roll on vaccine. Old gits like us are third tranche here which is looking like mid-late January for the first of two jabs.

 

The UK Govt is capable of getting ANYTHING wrong. In fact their positivity rating for screwing things up is far higher than Covid's for infecting us.

Maybe its time to put the Government in lockdown.

 

I think mid-late January is very optimistic I'm afraid mate. I would doubt if vaccines are freely available by middle of next year

 

Having looked at this to try and figure it out, I think they are doing positives per population, which as you say is very misleading. If you look at the published figures for Donny (population c. 310,000) and calculate based on total cases over the previous week (there seems to be a 1 week lag, presumably due to delay in finalising results) and do total cases/310,000*100,000 then you end up with the figures quoted for the past 2 weeks of positives per 100,000 of the population. As you say, if testing is being scaled up this will potentially massively misrepresent the prevalence of the disease.

https://www.doncaster.gov.uk/servic...confirmed cases for,100,000 as at Friday 20th.

 

Lies, damn lies and statistics...

 

Ha ha....ha ha ha...ha ha ha ha ha ha.....ha ha...ha.

You underestimate them too much