[quote littleowl1]@cathyandclare
Hi Cathy, yes I have considered including case numbers per 100,000. In fact its been an ongoing internal debate. Here are my thoughts.
In lots of scenarios I prefer cases per 100,000. But I also think there is a tendency to assume that rebasing the data per 100,000 somehow makes areas (and data) comparable. And that it somehow makes all areas comparable. Which I don't agree with.
It's probably a very long and boring post to go into all the details but I will touch on a few elements.
I think when we talk about our local areas, areas we are familiar with, the absolute number of cases is more valuable.
If you are familiar with an area (eg where you live), you are familiar with the demographic, the population density, you have a general and innate sense of what the fabric of your community is like. You have an awareness of household size, ethnicity, of how spread out homes are, of how people socialise and how they live and intermingle day-to-day. Of how likely the community is likely to comply with safety guidance. All of these elements effect covid transmission rates and covid risk.
And when you read the absolute number of cases in your area, you are aware of all these elements and that absolute number means something to you; you naturally interpret it on the back of all the knowledge you have about your area.
Rebasing per 100,000 of population, i feel, risks people thinking that it is the only way to think about case numbers and the only way to think about risk. And that it is somehow a more authoritative way to assess risk. Which is not always true.
The fabric of your area and community has a huge bearing on what case numbers mean and what risk they present.
For example, the following two hypothetical scenarios have the same case rate per 100,000 but the local risk is very different:
-
50 cases per 100K in a large, remote, rural area where houses are spread out massively and average occupants per household is low
-
50 cases per 100k in a built up, high rise, incredibly dense population area of inner London - a geographically tiny area with a prevalence of high rise apartment block buildings and people living cheek by jowl where average occupants per household is high
Same case rate per 100k. Very different risk though.
So I find, when comparing/discussing areas I don't know much about, per 100,000 of population is a valuable rebasing tool to give a quick-and-dirty side-by-side comparison.
But when thinking about areas I know something about, then I prefer absolute numbers; I find them more valuable. I feel I lose some of their intrinsic value by rebasing them.
On that note, I think there is an argument for including the per 100k of pop in the top 10 table in the daily email alerts as there will undoubtedly be areas in there unfamiliar to recipients. So, yes actually, I will add that to my to do list. It might take a week or two though.
I would love to hear your thoughts. It is something I have been asked and I may change my mind in the future, or maybe add it at the bottom below all the absolute numbers.
Its an ongoing consideration.
Do you think ppl would prefer per 100K for their local area?[/quote]
I agree with your reasoning! Whilst per 100,000 makes it easier to compare, comparisons don't do individuals much good. It's sadly/guiltily reassuring to be in a lower per 100,000 area, but it doesn't actually mean much. Whereas knowing there have been 7 new cases this week does
I get your morning updates, which are brilliant, thank you!
My issue is that where I live is on a point where several areas meet and the one I'm officially in, the vast majority of the population is miles away from me, whereas I'm on the boarder of several others. I wish I could do one by post code! (But I know that's not how you get your source info & im very grateful for the ones you do do!!)