Those figures are of absolutely no use if trying to determine whether the overall rate is rising or not! The (estimated) populations of each LA would need to be known to actually draw any conclusion from them. Presumably it IS known by whoever provides the stats.
And, if so, is quite possibly/likely the reason for the discrepancy between England and Scotland figures!
Only if the actual number of people in each LA is (pretty much) the same - which it isn't by any means - or is known!
It's fine if you are simply comparing - say Reading with Bracknell Forest - or even, as WAS useful, the increase or decrease in each LA. But when you want/need to aggregate the figures, say for whole of Berkshire, you have to go back to the base stats - either by using the original numbers gathered, or by back-calculating them.
Was in tesco the other night on the way to work, was speaking to a girl who used to work for me at the airport for about 20 mins, pretty much every person who went past under 30 was not wearing a mask. Went into M&S in town today, same scenario in the indoor shopping centre. From what a read today most of the infections up here anyway are younger people. I think two schools have had to close infection rates.
I totally agree. But, as I posted, they are useless 'as is'!
Again, I agree. 'Comparing' is fine. But, as you state/agree, absolute/raw numbers are required for certain comparisons - unless the populations (the statistical term) were equal. Those were missing from the individual LA stats. Thus my 'are useless' comment. Of course, they would not have been 'useless' had they all been increasing, or all decreasing.
Agreed!
Next week we'll learn about how to calculate percentages. Can't wait.
That's a rather aloof attitude. Most people are more inclined to be not interested rather than not understanding.
