On 27/05/2021 18:33, ARW wrote:
On 27/05/2021 17:07, Robin wrote:
On 27/05/2021 13:31, soup wrote:
On 26/05/2021 19:45, ARW wrote:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulat...d2019estimates




figure 4.

And?

Well for one thing it's a very good example of the way the internet
can be used to make it easy to access and dig down into present quite
complex data sets.

For another thing it explains why old farts who live in inner cities
can feel a marginalised minority.Â* We are

And I thought it mildly interesting to see how some regular posters
live in areas where the average age approaches what one of the
presenters once said was the average age of listeners to BBC's Today
programme.




It's also a good way to show that I messed up and the link was meant to
be an email to a friend and not to the newsgroup:-)


Ageing issue ?? :-)

However I might as well fill you in with the details as to why I was
sending it.

Figure 4 of the above link used in conjunction with

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map

We had been discussing the average age and population density of an area
against covid rates for that area and the fact that most people under 45
have not had their first dose. Basically to see how similar the maps
looked when compared with age and/or population density.

Figures for vaccine uptake by age are taken from here

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...report#history


"Based on antibody testing of blood donors, 73.6% of the adult
population now have antibodies to COVID-19 from either infection or
vaccination compared to 15.6% that have antibodies from infection
alone. Over 98% of adults aged 60 or older have antibodies from either
infection or vaccination."

There is an upper age limit of between 66 and 70 (exceptions apply)
for blood donors so I don't see how they can make the claim of 98%.
98% of the donors who are over 60 might make more sense.



So more figures to play with if you have not seen them. It gave me
something to do whilst I was off work with a bad knee.