I don’t remember seeing the Imperial model for this.https://www.bbc.com/news/education-54827702 …
The first sentence "there was a 20% rise" Second paragraph says that this equates to 64 incidents. So roughly up from 52 to 64. Not exactly a huge increase!
-
-
8 deaths. 300 cases of serious injury. Is that figure large enough for you now?https://twitter.com/JodeReed/status/1324601426040004609 …
-
At a 20% increase, that would be going from 6-7 deaths last year to 7-8 deaths now. And an extra 10 or so events involving babies. That's literally what you get when you extrapolate the figures
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
If we were to normalise to population, I suspect it would be more useful. From a rate of roughly 2.6 per 100k to 3.2 per 100k children, or an absolute increase of around 0.006%
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This article makes it clearer which figure it’s referring to.https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/coronavirus-lockdown-babies-killed-england-b1640952.html …
-
Those are the same figures - 300 incidents involving children, 64 of which (40%) were babies, a 20% increase from last year. So numerically about 10 more incidents
- Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.