I thought the "former freemason" bit was most amusing. Too extreme for the freemasons takes some doing.
I think someone told Rashford that our former keeper Gulacsi hates kids, judging by that performance by him tonight.
Christmas Tinner now available with Veggie or Vegan options. Try growing effing vegetables at the North Pole!
Taken from new Imperial College research: The hardest hit area is Yorkshire and the Humber, where one in every 37 people has the virus, followed by the North West region That sounds unrealistically high to me, anybody on the ground in Hull got an opinion?
All I can say is I don't know anyone who's got it or has had it. I don't even know anyone who knows someone else who's had it. I'm not doubting this research, I'm just saying.
That feels high doesn’t it? I would say that just Yorkshire covers a huge area and I suspect that the East Riding / and the Humber part of this is less widely infected than the South and West Yorkshire hotspots are. It’s here and real though. Unlike Kemps I do know several people locally who’ve had it. A couple of people at work, one of whom was hospitalised, my parents-in-law both had it and she was also hospitalised. None of these are ‘live’ cases admittedly, though I was speaking to a friend just this morning who’s football training had been cancelled due to 3 or 4 of his teammates having it.
2 people at work had relatives who died, lads football coach his father and aunt died, chap I cycle with 2 of his older friends died of it, all these early on, a few have had it at work, a few more when tested had antibodies, some who'd had it now don't have antibodies, I think at best we are managing it until a vaccine comes along, be happy you don't know anyone who has had it, or died of it
That 1 in 37 number has to be wrong....that would be approx 2.7% of the regions population. Looking at the reported figures fo the City of Nottingham, a hot spot, the numbers are 690 per 100,000, which is 0.69% ! Hard to believe Humberside area is 4X the Nottingham level ? Unless I'm missing something here ?
All you’re ‘missing’ is that the Imperial College survey is an ongoing sample across the population so covers anyone who’s contacted and agrees to take a test, as opposed to that 690, which is a self-selecting bunch of people who’ve asked to take a test and been found positive. So the Imperial model should give a more accurate picture of infection levels as it includes asymptomatic cases, whereas the other only includes people who have sufficiently bad symptoms that they’ve sought out a quite unpleasant test. EDIT - thinking about what I've just said the Imperial survey might make it look a bit worse than it really is as I imagine that people invited to take part are more likely to say 'No' if they don't have any symptoms at all and thought it was going to hurt, whereas if they're feeling grotty they might see it as easier than arranging a test through the Government site, which has had widely reported supply issues. So it might skew figures the other way
The 1 in 37 is Yorkshire & Humber total who have it, but the 690 per 100,000 for Notts isn’t a total it’s just the positive cases in the last 7 days. So you’re comparing two different things. There will be more people that ‘have it’ than there will be people who have only just found out they have it in the last few days.
