To boldly go ?

GeoffL said:
But the holidaymakers who had covid in Cornwall had it registered at their home addresses not in Cornwall, therefore the figures for covid in Cornwall were much lower as they only included Cornish residents. Does that make a difference? My maths is rubbish!
Click to expand...
Somehow got my post in the wrong box and can't correct it.
 
colinm said:
Was talking to a Cornish couple on Friday, they have abandoned Cornwall and working their way north to their sons in Edinburgh. Their view as we said we where considering going down there, "For your own sanity stay well clear"! I believe Cornwall and Devon hospitals are still under high pressure and not admitting for retinue operations.
Click to expand...
This was certainly correct a week or so ago. Haven't heard recently.
 
@Debroos: Cases are recorded at the location they were reported. Thus, those who reported positive (e.g. via NHS Track 'n Trace) gave rise to a case in the region they were at the time they reported positive. Thus, holidaymakers who reported positive while in Cornwall got added to the Cornish total. However, the population figure used to calculate the rate is that of the permanent population, and does not include tourists. Here's a worked example:

Let's consider a region with a permanent population of 10,000 that during the height of the season swells to 40,000. Now assume that in a week at the height of the season, 40 people report positive. The official Covid rate is calculated as (40/10,000) * 100,000 = 400 per 100,000.
However, the positive cases were reported when the actual population (including tourists) was the seasonal high of 40,000, not the 10,000 used in the official calculation. Hence the actual Covid rate is (40/40,000) * 100,000 = 100 per 100,000.

Of course, you have to use the actual figures for whichever area is under consideration.
 
colinm said:
Was talking to a Cornish couple on Friday, they have abandoned Cornwall and working their way north to their sons in Edinburgh. Their view as we said we where considering going down there, "For your own sanity stay well clear"! I believe Cornwall and Devon hospitals are still under high pressure and not admitting for retinue operations.
Click to expand...
Devon and Cornwall hospitals are always under high pressure during the tourist season. Like all elements of societal infrastructure, they are planned with reference to the permanent population and not with regard to the number of tourists who might also need their services. As you imply, this year the pressure was exceptional and at least two of the regions major hospitals (Derriford and Treliske) posted 'black alert' status warnings. However, AFAICT, the 'black alert' status warnings of early summer have all now been removed. FWIW, I know of people who have recently had routine operations and normal service seems to have resumed, albeit with extended waiting times due to the backlog.
 
I have very litte experience in D&C, what is the reason that makes the SW seem to struggle (and seem to moan, urban myth maybe) each year during the summer season (inc none covid) but Peaks and Lakes seem to do ok? Peaks have better road access but once off the M6 Lakes doesn't.

Just wondering
 
Tookey said:
I have very litte experience in D&C, what is the reason that makes the SW seem to struggle (and seem to moan, urban myth maybe) each year during the summer season (inc none covid) but Peaks and Lakes seem to do ok? Peaks have better road access but once off the M6 Lakes doesn't.

Just wondering
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about the Lakes, but Peak District is surrounded by large urban conurbations, so there are plenty of services within a relatively few miles. Cornwall and Devon are literally on a limb, and have no surrounding services to call on.
 
GeoffL said:
@Debroos: Cases are recorded at the location they were reported. Thus, those who reported positive (e.g. via NHS Track 'n Trace) gave rise to a case in the region they were at the time they reported positive. Thus, holidaymakers who reported positive while in Cornwall got added to the Cornish total. However, the population figure used to calculate the rate is that of the permanent population, and does not include tourists. Here's a worked example:

Let's consider a region with a permanent population of 10,000 that during the height of the season swells to 40,000. Now assume that in a week at the height of the season, 40 people report positive. The official Covid rate is calculated as (40/10,000) * 100,000 = 400 per 100,000.
However, the positive cases were reported when the actual population (including tourists) was the seasonal high of 40,000, not the 10,000 used in the official calculation. Hence the actual Covid rate is (40/40,000) * 100,000 = 100 per 100,000.

Of course, you have to use the actual figures for whichever area is under consideration.
Click to expand...
Whilst what you say is correct, the example you are used is highly misleading. In a 'normal' summer Cornwall will see an estimated 60% average increase in population, we can only guess at this summers figures, but if the tourists increased by 50% (a huge increase which would be unstainable) that would have given a rate of around 400 per 100,000 45% higher at the time than where I live, and a third higher than the present covid rates, so still nowhere the lowest figures in the country.
 
colinm said:
Whilst what you say is correct, the example you are used is highly misleading. In a 'normal' summer Cornwall will see an estimated 60% average increase in population, we can only guess at this summers figures, but if the tourists increased by 50% (a huge increase which would be unstainable) that would have given a rate of around 400 per 100,000 45% higher at the time than where I live, and a third higher than the present covid rates, so still nowhere the lowest figures in the country.
Click to expand...
The increases in population due to tourism came from the local press and other sources, which indicate that in a 'normal' school holiday period, the seasonal population of Cornwall roughly doubles. Cornwall Live (IIRC) reported that tourism had increased by a further 50%, which meant that the seasonal population would be roughly triple the permanent one. Now add Boardmasters to the mix, which brought the population of the Newquay area up to approximately four times the winter population...
The average UK rate for week ending 15 Sept for England was just over 300 per 100,000. In the same period, the official rate for Cornwall was 241.7 / 100,000 (source: coronavirus.gov.uk). However, tourism increases the population during the season and hence the actual rate must be lower. If the seasonal population increase is only 10%, the actual rate will be 217.5 / 100,000, which at least makes it well below the national average.
BTW, I chose those figures not to mislead but to make the calculations easier to follow -- and I did say that you need to do the calculations using the actual data for whatever region you want to consider.
 
colinm said:
.gov map has broad bands, it shows most of country in 400 to 799, so you can have an area with close to twice the case rate in the same band.
Click to expand...
Agreed. However, you can click on each area and get the exact figure for that. Also, you can zoom in quite far and get specifics for each locality. FWIW, I spent a few minutes zoomed in to approximately 'town' level randomly clicking throughout the country before noting that the Southwest had about the same rate as most of the rest of the country. That said, the data was updated this evening and so it'll be necessary to carry out the same exercise to see how the various regions compared last week.
 
3hlshT2.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who viewed this discussion (Total:0)

Back
Top