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.

I see the c-19 tracker app from Kings is now asking about activity/interaction. Investigating transmission with new freedoms?

I'd expect London to have a higher infection rate than Stockholm, even given the lockdown difference,
but also that the Uk as a whole is lower than Stockholm

5% over the country would fit with the serology study for Spain and similar estimates for France

BCF I understood it to be 17% London (so 9 million odd?) and then 5% for the rest of country excl London.

It wasn't specifically said.

But potentially ~6.6% overall?

Still a long way to go before we are near herd immunity though.

So about 1.5 million of the 9 million Londoners would have had it
and just under 3 million in the rest of the country

Yes, 4.5 million is a long way from herd immunity in a country of 67 million

I wonder if the 17% in London is contributing to the lower R value there. Obviously miles off herd immunity but presumably herd immunity is a gradual thing with increasing immunity slowing the spread of infection.

17% immunity combined with the lockdown might be making some difference.

Remember that London is much younger than the country as a whole. So London-like antibody rates everywhere would mean mass carnage and 100k++ people dead

Good point shoots
I also thought the admissions had been lower previously so I'm glad someone noted this. The graph did show a slight rise. We are 2 weeks post VE Day now.

I also thoughts we'd been show the guesstimate of infected people over a week before from ONS study? I was sure previously it was 143k? I obviously could be getting confused with thing else so this is just a suggestion of a previously published stat and not fact.

Eh scratch that, if it's 5% elsewhere and 17% in London you'd need to triple the deaths so far roughly. So 150kish. London has got off lightly even if it doesn't realise it.

It makes death counts nearer 500k look more reasonable with no action.

Hospital beds per 100,000 population ?
Teaching hospital beds per 100,000 population ?

London is knee deep in teaching hospitals and research teams ....

The virus was spotted in Wuhan because the experts were there to spot the anomaly
I am still unconvinced that it started there

ditto London numbers

The C-19 tracker for number of people with symptomatic disease is double that of the ONS survey. Any suggestions as to why?

FWIW I drove past my local drive through testing centre today yet again
3 cars
this is a site set up to stack 100 cars
and WAS set up to take 600 cars
shambles does not even come close

@Clavinova it is a funny world, Birmingham Airport in Solihull, Warwick University in Coventry. You can't trust names.

We thought the natural barrier of the Lickey Hills made Birmingham seem less accessible to Bromsgrove people. Madness really as again Birmingham has pretty well joined it and Bromsgrove is almost joined with Droitwich which is almost joined with Worcester. It is actually a huge conurbation when you consider that and The Black Country, Sutton Coldfield and Solihull. They all value their difference though and definitely don't want to be a Greater Birmingham following the model of Greater London.

Can anyone point me to a study that has separated out the effects of age and comorbidities?

Does anyone know if the details behind the UK antibody test have been published? I’m interested to get my nerdy head around it, in particular sample size, whether it has been normalised for age etc. On the face of it, the death rate in London is c. 0.6%, but c.1.0% for the rest of the UK (though probably higher as there are likely to be a fair number of Covid deaths not actually in the official figures.

It's more disgusting when it's an essential worker

^No I don’t accept that & I don’t think it needs pointing out to any civilised person that either people deserve a certain degree of dignity & kindness even after death or they don’t. Occupation has nothing do to with that - there or no more or less deserving dead ffs.

Can anyone point me to a study that has separated out the effects of age and comorbidities?

@MereDintofPandiculation
I cant copy and paste the link on my phone but search 'OpenSafely: factors associated with covid-19 related hospital death' (that's the title of the paper, it's a pre-release at the moment)

Is the 143k infe ted that day/week etc?

When discussing the vulnerable asthma and diabetes etc parents you need to remember that
1 parents need to be well enough to care for dc
2 hospitalisation will be higher obviously than death as will icu.
3 long term effects -lung damage if you already have asthma.
4 death more likely if you are older but balanced against middle aged people with yoingish kids more years of life lost etc
5 from uk data we wont see the full effects on shielded or vulnerable as they arent out or are SD more strictly. Just as more cases are now in some younger age groups.
Effectively some shielded groups could be at zero risk but unlikely to have enough data on it.

Also it looked like uk underlying was often pneumonia which seems a bit dodgy to claim they arent healthy ?

Keep yes and it's important to remember those issues as they will have longer term social impacts eg on the children. I'd be worried about single mothers who are clinically vulnerable with few relatives to support them.

There will be so many other factors to adjust for. In the us where there's no nhs, there's a higher rate of hospitalisation and death from asthma, potentially due to lack of access to correct medications? At the same time not all individuals in the U.K. with asthma may be on the right medication when they catch COVID. It can change with age and hormones etc.

Poverty is clearly another factor to adjust for for many reasons.

www.thelancet.com/journals/lanres/article/PIIS2213-2600(20)30234-4/fulltext

Thanks @QuarantineQueen

Low T cells thought to be linked to severe Corvid disease:

Coronavirus: Immune clue sparks treatment hope www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52754280

Interesting link to vit d:

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/03/100307215534.htm

My son is autistic. He doesn't have learning difficulties and isn't in sheltered accommodation. He is a healthy young man with a full lifespan ahead of him. I see autism counts as an underlying condition? I hope I'm incorrect.

Hi Callimanco - what a worry for you, where did you read that? I haven't seen any mention of this. I would be interested to see what exactly they are saying.

To me, it seems very unlikely that your son would be at increased risk just because of autism. I expect that people who have a type of autism that leaves them non-verbal and unable to care for themselves and who, therefore, live in a care home might be at increased risk, but that doesn't apply to your lovely boy.

Another thing to reassure you is that by far the biggest risk factor is being older. Young people (under 40ish) with even fairly severe underlying physical conditions are still extremely unlikely to die. When you look at the graphs (there is one somewhere on this thread) the bar for deaths in people under 40 is so tiny you can barely see it.

I would be interested where you read about autism being an underlying condition too.
My ds has HSP which is neurological so KS vulnerable through that but is also autistic.

I have done some calculations and I wondered if this is correct. I know that behind every statistic is a person so I do not want to minimise any suffering - but this is intended to be a dispassionate analysis.

So London has a population of 9 million
We now know 17% of londoners have had covid 19 - possible more actually but let's say 1.5 million (which is 17% of 9 million).
According to the ONS 88% of people who die of covid 19 are over 65.
Deaths in London hospitals due to coronavirus are 6000 approx. 75% of deaths occur in hospitals. To get the figure for the wider London community (care homes etc) gross up the 6000 figure to 8000.
So in London 8000 people have died out of 1.5 million infected. That is a case fatality rate of 0.53%. Recent studies show this is around the correct ball park for this figure.
Now assume 80% of all London gets the virus and that 0.53% of them die. That is 38,160 people. Of those 38,160 people, 88% would be over 65. 12% would be under 65.
12% of 38,160 is 4,500 people approx.
Now I am not saying that 4,500 people in London are not worth saving, obviously, and this calculation works in a similar way for the uk as a whole which would obviously make the numbers much bigger. Likely deaths at .53% for under 65s - if 80% of UK got infected is c. 200,000. If everyone over 65 shielded and if everyone under 65 carried on as normal the economy would presumably fare a lot better. At what price do we save 200,000 under 65s? Let's say this costs 330 billion at the end of the year (government estimate). Divide that by 200,000 and it's over 3 million per person. Under 65s with cancer are often told that their treatments are too expensive and you can't just fly to America for special treatment etc - where is their 3 million pounds?