Oh goody, yet another set of misleading and meaningless numbers.
Quote:
|
PHE said the data did not prove where people were contracting coronavirus.
|
Quote:
|
By analysing the contacts and retracing the steps of the 128,808 people who'd reported they had tested positive between 9 November and 15 November, PHE data has uncovered the most frequent locations people with the virus had been, prior to testing positive.
|
If somebody from a "household fewer than five" takes a kid to "primary school" and then another to"nursery preschool", goes to a "restaurant or cafe", goes to work in a "warehouse", and also goes to a "supermarket" at some point, they are going to be in EACH of those six categories. It means 18.3% of those testing positive had visited a supermarket at some point in the previous days, but they also could've been visiting a gym.
What %age of the population go to the gym in the first place? As that is going to be low anyway, that implies a higher risk than the 1.1% figure for somebody who goes to a gym.
Why do the civil service keep insisting on releasing misleading and meaningless numbers that serve no purpose, other than to be misrepresented by others with a distorted agenda.
