Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 8

[Barracker]

Welcome to thread 8 of the daily updates.

Resource links:
Worldometer UK page
Financial Times Daily updates and graphs
HSJ Coronavirus updates
Johns Hopkins Coronavirus Resource Centre
NHS England stats, including breakdown by Hospital Trust
Covidly.com to filter graphs using selected data filters
ONS statistics for CV related deaths outside hospitals, released weekly each Tuesday

Thank you to all contributors for their factual, data driven, and civil discussions.

Neuro there are some similarities! He gets no idea of what people mean, struggles with fairly basic question and answers and got a 9 in his science mock! (His reading age is 10 and spelling 7!)

Had anyone found any links to this science that children do not pass on the virus as much as adults. I found a ONS study that disputes this but nothing else.

It's being reported in the press that 19m British people have already had Covid-19. Sorry, no link bit sure you have all seen it. What is your take on this please?

Fact checked re children

fullfact.org/health/children-transmitting-coronavirus/

Possible reasons for Cumbria numbers

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/15/barrow-residents-demand-know-shipyard-coronavirus-hotspot?CMP=ShareiOSAppp_Other

Ah its he sounds lovely. I do hope that that was it and not another virus for you all.

Thanks neuro he is fab but quite trying being locked down with him thanks for that link above. It says what we've all been saying that statistics can be written up to match the story you want to tell.

Howabout I think that's the next task they're aiming to do.

Howaboutanewname

The type 1 / type 2 breakdown is due out sometime next week.

BCF re your post at 00.35. How can they justify lifting the lockdown when active cases are still increasing? - there must be massive hidden community transmission do you think?, it can't just be care homes bumping up the figures.
I don't see any way on this earth we'll have 0 cases by July either.
Thanks to all posters here for the air of calmness. It makes a refreshing change.

Its, I bet it is and actually why I do think more numbers of children going back safely is wise; I think they've gone about it badly. So many of our pupils and parents will definitely be struggling in ways the mn massive simply aren't. It's such a fine balance though and obviously some pupils won't come back due to health.

Luckily Sen schools are free to do as they believe they can safely. Admittedly though, the school is often better set up to facilitate cleaning as germs are a very common hazard, more so than mainstream due to various toileting and hygiene reasons. I know staff still feel vulnerable though especially with this virus.

It's a headline by the university of Manchester , an analytical model but the details are not actually given so I can't make any statement as to the method used or it's likely accuracy ( or even the accuracy generated by the model ...like does it say 25% +/- what )

I would wait until there has been some antibody testing done

Going back to the R-rate again, I saw this in the Torygraph this morning (it cites PHE) ... absolutely striking for the regional differences but less that 24 new infections a day in London - it’s like a different country entirely.

bigchoc
I may be missing something here, but won't that active cases graph be reflecting the fact that we are testing more, and testing those with more minor symptoms, rather than that our number of people with an active infection is increasing?

Very interesting discussion just before 8am on today r4 regarding Gateshead figures and testing.

Much more nuanced issues and things to consider.

They've taken an approach to test everyone entering hospital, for any reason for example. Also, rates of the risk diseases are higher in that area.

I know our local hospital trust are testing everyone who goes into hospital either for an elective procedure or as an emergency. They apparently have 1 hour tests for emergency admissions.

Are London hospitals doing that I wonder? The difference there is so striking that there must be some reason behind it? I can’t imagine that with London being so densely populated and with so few having private outdoor space that they have locked down more stringently than anywhere else.

I think they estimated 200,000 infections there a day during the peak. Perhaps the numbers of previously infected people are slowing the spread there now?

Sunshine That's what they are doing here (here is Germany / BW). DMIL was sent to hospital from her care home for sth different and was tested (negative).
They are intending to reopen up care homes to one designated visitor per person (+masks + distance), but before they do they test every resident to get the status at a fixed point in time. Don't know when they publish results though.

Are London hospitals doing that I wonder?

I live in London (Zone 3). I took DD for her 3 year vaccinations a few days ago and the nurse asked me about C19 symptoms in either DD or myself. I got an impression they actually wanted to test us (or refer us for testing) but we were both feeling absolutely fine and did not meet referral criteria.

Manchester paper here. It's not great, it just extrapolates the linear downward trend in R (that's what the statistics expert in my house says, anyway).

BigChoc, where does the figure for the active cases in the UK come from? As I understood it we weren't retesting and counting negative tests in people who were previously so we don't have a reliable figure for active cases.

IO popped over hoping to see a discussion re the Manchester paper.

It is confusing me slightly, to be honest. They exrapolated there are 150 community cases for each reported case, and a 0.2% mortality rate. Using these statistics they have come up with a total of 26.8% of the population having already been infected.

These figures are so far off any I have seen previously, it confuses me. My understanding was that about 10% of cases required hospitalisation and overall somewhere between 0.4 and 1% of cases were fatal.They seem to be saying that well under 0.67% of cases require hospitalisation, and of those 1/3 are fatal. I am not a statistician, but I don't understand how they have come up with those figures... they don't seem to match the reality reported by other countries....

Have found a critique of the paper here: link

another critique

It is a shame, really, that the report doesn't make it clearer how it came up with its figures. I would love it to be right.

I am very dubious about the Manchester paper that is just analytical equations and theoretical modelling,

vs

Spain, based on a study from their Ministry of health checking for antibodies in 60,000 blood tests

when the results give 19 million Brits have been infected, over 25% of the population

vs

Spain, where their Ministry of Health estimates only 5% of the population, 2.3 million people

• and Spain has a slightly higher death / million than the UK

I did maths modelling for nearly 40 years and we would normally trust actual tests over theory

"where does the figure for the active cases in the UK come from"

Countess The figures for active cases for all countries come from John Hopkins, as stated in the graph footnote

No country has very reliable figures - people are not normally required to notify the authorities if they are fit again -
so countries use discharge from hospital, GP notes etc and then maths extrapolation
The UK hasn't published these, but John Hopkins likely has access

Research supporting a 'hidden period' of epidemic in UK and other countries, suggests actually started in UK January 6th.

Hidden periods, duration and final size of COVID-19 pandemic

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.10.20097147v1