Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 9

[Barracker]

Welcome to thread 9 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 think the government should make the local data easier to find - maybe publish the latest 7 days of confirmed cases for each LA on a map, rather than hidden away on a spreadsheet. It would surely be useful for people to see how their local area is doing.

Thanks Quarantino

I guess what I’m trying to do is assess the risk myself based on actual number of active cases in my area which is currently at around 330 per 1k population which will include cases no longer active but good point on unconfirmed cases making the numbers higher than reported.

That should be 330 per 100k population!

Howdid The number of active cases is obviously a small % of the cumulative cases
and will have sharply reduced from the epidemic peak

Unfortunately, the UK is one of the few countries not to publish the number of people who have recovered from COVID
or indeed to pass this data to the WHO and ECDC like other countries do.

Hence, we don't even know the total number of active cases in the UK, let alone locally
Nothing sinister, afaik it's just a lack of capability to obtain this data

You could check the hospitalisation numbers in your local health authority,
to at least see the number of more serious active cases.

I agree somewhat irene and even when you download it it's a bit fiddly - I almost had double the numbers as when I filtered on my county it's recorded as both a UTLA and LTLA. I do like getting at the actual data though so if pushed would rather have that.
However that'd mean someone would be making a decision about which data/time set the 'relevant' one is, which I don't think is clear cut. So I'm glad I can get it all.

Thanks BigChocFrenzy

Didn’t realise the recovered data wasn’t readily available. Do you have a link to check local hospital cases? Am I correct in thinking the hospitalisation rate is around 20% of the probable infection rate?

Handy FT tool to plot 7 day rolling average of deaths for up to 6 countries:

Clearly shows how deaths in most European countries, including the UK, are continuing to decline.

Sweden is an outlier:
with some social distancing but not full lockdown, its deaths remain plateaued;
hence its deaths / million rising more quickly than its neighbours

I agree IrenetheQuaint.

As people in the UK are increasingly being left to make their own risk assessments, or negotiate these with employers, it would be useful to be able to find local data, including historical.

One school had 7 staff positive while still only open to KW children.
With 5% of hospital staff positive it's possible some just have leftover virus in their nose. But it does mean previously infected
We need antibody tests on care home staff and hospital to see how many have had it.

Is that only uk where ist is 70x for that age group as maybe it would be significantly lower if they were admitted even for o2.

howdid check the links in the OP (not always obvious where to find everything!)
The Surveillance Report (weekly) can be interesting too.
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/888254/COVID19_Epidemiological_Summary_w22_Final.pdf

Thanks Quarantino I’ll have a good look through them.

As those close to me are starting to return to work etc. I just wanted to get a true picture of my area. It’s good to see the numbers dropping every day but not really helpful of having a clear picture.

KeepDistance It's because the risk for under 40 is so low, not just that 80+ is so high

The risk difference wrt age is even more extreme elsewhere, where they treated with O2 etc earlier and kept the under 40 death rate even lower

e.g. it's about 170x in Germany - where treatment is to the maximum for everyone and very early

That's because only about 32 people under 40 died, in a country of 83 million
Total deaths are only about 8,600, but it starkly highlights that age is the dominant factor

That's only 1 girl and 9 women under 40 died, highlighting the sex difference too

but when so many on MN are frightened about their risk due to weight or asthma etc as a risk,
all those conditions seem quite insignificant risks compared to age

@Cuddling57

I’ve been trying to ponder how to handle the ethics of the age factor since it became clear on this thread that age was significant but only I’ve questions not answers.

From a protection sense, it makes sense to shield the elderly, but from a social sense many will feel that they want to make the most of their time left to be with people. Or, especially for recent retirees in good health, participate in things that working life held them back from being able to do (shopping, sport, socialising etc).

If preventing loss of life is the most important factor, it makes sense that older people should be the first to benefit from a vaccine if it becomes available. However are people Age 80+ being included in trials? Will the government see it this way or target the working age population first to get them back to work?

It must be scary to live in a care home now. What can be done to make it easier for residents? Someone mentioned oxygen above. Does transferring care home residents to hospital for treatment provide a better outcome or should more treatment (like portable oxygen) be available at care homes to reduce risk the need to travel?

I think it likely that the real “exit” from this for those are 65 and particularly over 80 will be a vaccine. Hopefully it will be possible to drive infection rates low enough that risk is reduced sufficiently to allow more socialising in that group fairly soon.

The Oxford group have just launched stage II/III trials which include older people and children.

www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/oxford-covid-19-vaccine-to-begin-phase-ii-iii-human-trials

Interesting

Coronavirus: Ibuprofen tested as a treatment www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52894638

Neurotrash I saw that, but thought there had been a completely opposite report that you should avoid Ibuprofen a couple of months back?

@pussycatinboots

Neurotrash I saw that, but thought there had been a completely opposite report that you should avoid Ibuprofen a couple of months back?

There were reports from France to that end but they were very much in the vain of a hint of something being blown up into something massive by the media/social media (which has been a defining theme of the last 3 months). I remember reading at the time that there wasn't strong evidence than ibuprofen was bad but people should exercise caution and use paracetamol first at least (which is good default position anyway)

the ibuprofen thing was an observation that never had any science to back it up.

The report on BAME is long but inconclusive as it doesnt look at the comorbidity The science paper does - and appears to rule out vitamin D levels. However some of the variables examined, including vitamin D, seem to be 10-14 year old data.

The BAME risk, though significant is really small in proportion to the age and sex risk. It still means that young black females are at extremely low risk.

The excess risk of death for BAME is larger than sex. However that's mostly geography, work and it doesn't seem that there is an inherent biological reason, just different infection rates, and higher prevalence of certain illnesses.

The sex risk is likely to be biological.

Tbf most of the risk is biological one way or another.

Confirmation of risk associated with blood group:

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.31.20114991v1

I noticed on a Sky App yesterday that my town has a number of 4 cases per 100,000 people with only 10 new cases last week. This is in a town of 240,000 people. It seems a very low risk of catching this currently as I am guessing most of these will be in closed settings such as care homes or hospitals. The number overall for the town is 83 per 100,000 so a huge drop off despite the increased number of tests. For me, that indicates relative safety. I accept that there will be some without symptoms but in the mast testing in Wuhan recently where they have tested the whole population of millions, there wasn’t too many positive tests.

@ShootsFruitAndLeaves

Is this research all wrong too?

Greater risk of severe COVID-19 in non-White ethnicities is not explained by cardiometabolic, socioeconomic, or behavioural factors, or by 25(OH)-vitamin D status: study of 1,326 cases from the UK Biobank

www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.20118943v1

@BigChocFrenzy Thanks for the link to the FT tool posted yesterday at 2237. If I'm reading it correctly, that's absolute deaths not a per population rate?

@EugeniaGrace Interesting point on the future for the elderly. I've seen cut offs at 65+, 70+, and 80+ all mentioned, but regardless, I think an important consideration is that a vast number of that group are not elderly 'frail', for want of a better word, but elderly in age number only and otherwise very active. Whilst those in care homes clearly need better protection than has been received, there must be a plan for the elderly active, but sadly I can't think of one except the vaccine route.