Kernow wrote:Your figure seems too low, Sherwod Forest trusts have recorded 122 deaths. Actual figure of positive tests is surely much higher.
Kernow wrote:Your figure seems too low, Sherwod Forest trusts have recorded 122 deaths. Actual figure of positive tests is surely much higher.
The One wrote:Kernow wrote:Your figure seems too low, Sherwod Forest trusts have recorded 122 deaths. Actual figure of positive tests is surely much higher.
No the above is correct
MTFCMusings wrote:The One wrote:Kernow wrote:Your figure seems too low, Sherwod Forest trusts have recorded 122 deaths. Actual figure of positive tests is surely much higher.
No the above is correct
It’s not correct really is it. Think of all the people who have had it and did not know, or had symptoms but we’re not tested. I personally know 3 people who have had the symptoms but never been diagnosed.
Reg Holdsworth wrote:135 is the current known number of infections, i.e. excludes deaths and recovered cases. It was much higher at the peak of infection. Also, it should be noted that 135 represents a slight increase on last week.
The One wrote:MTFCMusings wrote:The One wrote:Kernow wrote:Your figure seems too low, Sherwod Forest trusts have recorded 122 deaths. Actual figure of positive tests is surely much higher.
No the above is correct
It’s not correct really is it. Think of all the people who have had it and did not know, or had symptoms but we’re not tested. I personally know 3 people who have had the symptoms but never been diagnosed.
They can only work on what they know surely
MTFCMusings wrote:The One wrote:MTFCMusings wrote:The One wrote:Kernow wrote:Your figure seems too low, Sherwod Forest trusts have recorded 122 deaths. Actual figure of positive tests is surely much higher.
No the above is correct
It’s not correct really is it. Think of all the people who have had it and did not know, or had symptoms but we’re not tested. I personally know 3 people who have had the symptoms but never been diagnosed.
They can only work on what they know surely
Of course, but that doesn’t meant the figure is reflective of the true situation.
part time pete wrote:Reg Holdsworth wrote:135 is the current known number of infections, i.e. excludes deaths and recovered cases. It was much higher at the peak of infection. Also, it should be noted that 135 represents a slight increase on last week.
No, that is the total positive tests
part time pete wrote:Kernow wrote:Your figure seems too low, Sherwod Forest trusts have recorded 122 deaths. Actual figure of positive tests is surely much higher.
The Mansfield figure is very low, but you must remember that Sherwood Forest hospital numbers include folk whose address is not in Mansfield. I think Mansfield DC area has only about 60 deaths up to end of May
https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/updat ... -postcode/
Big yella wrote:part time pete wrote:Kernow wrote:Your figure seems too low, Sherwod Forest trusts have recorded 122 deaths. Actual figure of positive tests is surely much higher.
The Mansfield figure is very low, but you must remember that Sherwood Forest hospital numbers include folk whose address is not in Mansfield. I think Mansfield DC area has only about 60 deaths up to end of May
https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/updat ... -postcode/
Well that link gives the biggest load of bull figures I've seen in ages. My wife works in a care home that has had 18 deaths, but according to that site the whole postcode for the home has only had 7 deaths.
part time pete wrote:Big yella wrote:part time pete wrote:Kernow wrote:Your figure seems too low, Sherwod Forest trusts have recorded 122 deaths. Actual figure of positive tests is surely much higher.
The Mansfield figure is very low, but you must remember that Sherwood Forest hospital numbers include folk whose address is not in Mansfield. I think Mansfield DC area has only about 60 deaths up to end of May
https://www.inyourarea.co.uk/news/updat ... -postcode/
Well that link gives the biggest load of bull figures I've seen in ages. My wife works in a care home that has had 18 deaths, but according to that site the whole postcode for the home has only had 7 deaths.
I would imagine that the folk who died were not tested.
Reg Holdsworth wrote:The other thing that jumps out at me is if there has been (over) 60 Mansfield deaths out of 135 TOTAL Mansfield cases that would be a mortality rate of approaching 50%. That cant possibly be right based on most scientist estimates of a mortality rate of somewhere between 0.5%-3%
The One wrote:Reg Holdsworth wrote:The other thing that jumps out at me is if there has been (over) 60 Mansfield deaths out of 135 TOTAL Mansfield cases that would be a mortality rate of approaching 50%. That cant possibly be right based on most scientist estimates of a mortality rate of somewhere between 0.5%-3%
SFH deaths is 122
Dave Wayne wrote:The One wrote:Reg Holdsworth wrote:The other thing that jumps out at me is if there has been (over) 60 Mansfield deaths out of 135 TOTAL Mansfield cases that would be a mortality rate of approaching 50%. That cant possibly be right based on most scientist estimates of a mortality rate of somewhere between 0.5%-3%
SFH deaths is 122
Deaths are recorded by home address, not where the death occurs. Also, SFH covers Ashfield and Newark as well, not just Mansfield.
The One wrote:Dave Wayne wrote:The One wrote:Reg Holdsworth wrote:The other thing that jumps out at me is if there has been (over) 60 Mansfield deaths out of 135 TOTAL Mansfield cases that would be a mortality rate of approaching 50%. That cant possibly be right based on most scientist estimates of a mortality rate of somewhere between 0.5%-3%
SFH deaths is 122
Deaths are recorded by home address, not where the death occurs. Also, SFH covers Ashfield and Newark as well, not just Mansfield.
Yes, I was replying to Reg post
Reg Holdsworth wrote:The One wrote:Dave Wayne wrote:The One wrote:Reg Holdsworth wrote:The other thing that jumps out at me is if there has been (over) 60 Mansfield deaths out of 135 TOTAL Mansfield cases that would be a mortality rate of approaching 50%. That cant possibly be right based on most scientist estimates of a mortality rate of somewhere between 0.5%-3%
SFH deaths is 122
Deaths are recorded by home address, not where the death occurs. Also, SFH covers Ashfield and Newark as well, not just Mansfield.
Yes, I was replying to Reg post
Yes, exactly, SFH is around 130 deaths now, with 60+ of them reported from Mansfield postcodes. 60+ Mansfield deaths out of only 135 Mansfield positive total cases is a disaster, surely?
Reg Holdsworth wrote:I’ve mainly taken the numbers quoted in this thread. But if it really isn’t the tragedy for Mansfield that it initially seemed based on relatively high death numbers as a proportion of relatively low recorded cases in Mansfield , I’ll stop worrying about it. Thanks!
Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum
Users browsing this forum: M E, Scothie the Stag and 407 guests