Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 11

[BigChocFrenzy]

Welcome to thread 11 of the daily updates

Resource links:

Slides & data UK govt pressers
NHS England stats including breakdown by Hospital Trust
ONS UK statistics for CV related deaths outside hospitals, released weekly each Tuesday
Financial Times Daily updates and graphs
HSJ Coronavirus updates
Worldometer UK page
Covidly.com to filter graphs using selected data filters ONS statistics for CV related deaths outside hospitals, released weekly each Tuesday
Plot COVID Graphs Our World in Data

We welcome factual, data driven, and civil discussions from all contributors 💐

@cathyandclare
@MarcelineMissouri

I don't believe those slides have been updated since late last week. I think they're just using the new system now. Very worrying that we can't get the hospitals admissions data but I think the excuse is they want to include the scottish data. But seems a bit moot as Scotland's hospital admissions have gone almost down to zero.

There is a mismatch between the 36 ‘at risk’ areas and the cumulative p1 and p2 data listed on the rp131 Twitter feed. For example, Wiltshire, Harrow and Wandsworth are all listed as high risk by Sky but actually have some of the lowest figures according to the twitter feed..

No wonder people are confused and anxious.

I think early on in the pandemic they didn't want to release post code data in case people were identified and marked by locals like lepers!

This makes sense, particularly if you remember the nonsense over 5G. Some postcodes cover very few houses - not hard to pick out the one that recently went on holiday in the early days. Now, I guess BME households might experience difficulties or even those of NHS staff. There are absolute idiots out there who will think nothing of vandalising property, engage in antisocial behaviour of any kind and just threaten and intimidate people. Police have got enough to do without having to manage that aswell.

My town is on that list and it is utter bullshit, they looked at the pillar one figures for two consecutive lists and listed the ones that had gone up by 100's of %, from 1-4 for example

Mine too, and the same thing jumped out at me. Admittedly it's a media piece and they're renowned for stirring up hysteria, but I simply don't get why the relatively small numbers are being used like this

Then again I don't get why they've been keeping the Pillar 2 numbers from local authorities either ... what the hell is going on here??

@FurForksSake
agree entirely. If you look at the list posted earlier today with pillar 1 and 2 info the two towns which look worrying are Bradford and Barnsley. But neither of those have nearly as many cases as Leicester.

London boroughs? Have Sky journalists actually looked at the numbers?

The borough with the highest weekly number of cases per 100,000 of population is Kensington and Chelsea. The absolute rate is 7.7 (which is still very low).

@cathyandclare
@wintertravel1980

I am seriously confused about the wales data. So on the new updated hospital chart admissions for yesterday was 49 but the number of new cases was 26? so twice as many people as being admitted to hospital than are testing positive? Seems daft. If as is noted the hospital admissions data for wales also includes suspected cases surely the positive test would show up somewhere but the number of positive cases is always below the hospital admissions, weird,

public.tableau.com/profile/public.health.wales.health.protection#!/vizhome/RapidCOVID-19virology-Mobilefriendly/Summary

Then again I don't get why they've been keeping the Pillar 2 numbers from local authorities either

I am not sure they had it. Sometimes we mistake incompetence for bad intentions.

Based on SAGE papers from early June, the government / PHE / etc have been working on "incorporating Pillar 2 testing results into the digital dashboard with the target date of June 22". Looks like up until then they only had higher level breakdowns.

It looks like the scale of Leicester issues only came to light when the granular level information had become available.

oh hang on again they have a pillar and pillar 2 problem though don't use that terminology. Another 21 cases yesterday in 'non nhs wales labs'. And surprise surprise no data available as to where they are, just like in England.

that 'at risk' list was originally complied by the Daily Mail though wasn't it? Now all the tabloids (sky & BBC fit in that category) are printing it as if it is some sort of official proclamation. Clearly it's bollocks.

Bradford, Barnsley and Rochdale all have higher rates, it's ludicrous to include them with areas which have single digit pillar 1 increases and overall low levels.

The government need to start publishing the localised pillar 2 data asap because the media are enjoying this far too much.

Is Neil Ferguson talking about the pillar 2 numbers? (This morning I didn’t hear the interview)

“I think we need to get the systems working, but I also agree that Public Health England and everybody involved is doing their best. It’s a very complex system to combine data from multiple sources from across the whole country. I don’t think we have any time to lose but I’m not going to sit here and start criticising people at the moment.“

Also re ‘at risk areas’

Ferguson said infection rates in Bradford and Doncaster were also a cause for concern.

“Those are areas, where not as high as Leicester, but they have some of the highest numbers of cases per 100,000 of the population, which is the relevant measure, so they’re clearly of concern.“

I am not sure they had it. Sometimes we mistake incompetence for bad intentions

I agree it’s more likely to be the former than the latter.

It makes more sense for government to share actual numbers for Leicester to underpin lockdown.

Halon’s razor - Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.

@torydeathdrug. Heavens yes. I am practically apoplectic here and that takes a lot! That map is verging on lying. Havering is top because if went from 2 cases to 8! None really believes they are going to lock down havering based on 8 cases? All it is doing is causing stress where it's not warranted.

I've just looked at the data and Gloucestershire is 145/150th of UTUA's with 0.6 cases per 100,000. How an earth can this make it onto a list?? Do we know where the Mail/Sky might be getting data from, assuming it is them compiling the list?

@BigChocFrenzy

Thanks for the link...

The list of 36 “at risk” areas “at risk of lockdown in days” is an example of one of the worst cases journalistic numerical and statistical illiteracy I’ve seen....

The 36 “at risk” areas, of which my area of Suffolk is one, seem to be based on analysis of rises in Pillar 1 cases between weeks. As I mentioned yesterday, the 50% rise in Suffolk, is based on Pillar 1 cases rising from a grand total of 2 to 3 from one week to the next. Apparently one extra case means we’re at risk of lockdown . By that analysis, NZers should be sealed in their homes due to their “dangerous surge”....

Of course, there could be a whole load of Pillar 2 cases that were excluded, but the journalists compiling the list didn’t consider that... However, the weekly surveillance report does though, with Suffolk near the bottom with just 1.5 cases per 100,000 over the last week!.... just 1% of Leicester’s number!

@SummerSazz

Yes, the stupid journalists used percentage rises, and only for Pillar 1 cases (the minority) so if you went from 1 to 2 cases, you had a 100% increase! .... which to them would be worse than going from 1,000 to 1,900 cases.

@derbygerbil Yes! it's verging on the criminal reporting tbh. It's causing worry where none is needed.

"Sources in Public Health England and the Department for Health told Sky News they are "working collaboratively",
focusing on the 36 areas in England where coronavirus cases are rising"

If official "sources" genuinely said this to Sky - who I haven't caught actually lying yet -
then I would presume they are looking at the absolute numbers of Pillar1+Pillar2 positives, not just % changes

That's assuming PHE and DoH aren't staffed by utter fools
(which would bring other concerns)

@torydeathdrug

The government need to start publishing the localised pillar 2 data asap because the media are enjoying this far too much.

They are now, albeit with a week’s worth of data (which is good imo as it irons out reporting anomalies that stupid journalists would only misinterpret). I posted the link a page or two back.

@BigChocFrenzy

Many of the 36 local authorities listed clearly don’t have high numbers of cases on the basis of the information available, and were identified in yesterday’s DM as being based on % rises (in pillar one cases). I think it’s more a case of Sky spinning the words somewhat to imply something that isn’t actually the case.

I've looked at our local Glos newspaper and it has a comment made on local radio this morning

'Gloucestershire’s health chief has said a sudden spike of coronavirus cases in the county is a worry.

Sarah Scott, Gloucestershire County Council’s county's director of public health, was talking about the fact that there have been five new cases in Gloucestershire in the last 24 hours and eight in the last five days.

Previously the county has been seeing either no cases or just one a day.'

It goes on to say they are monitoring the situation, liaising with PHE and trying to track anyone/anything in common via contact tracing.

Much more measured than there is a list of 36 towns which might be days away from Lia all lockdown...

@BigChocFrenzy

"Sources in Public Health England and the Department for Health told Sky News they are "working collaboratively", focusing on the 36 areas in England where coronavirus cases are rising"

If official "sources" genuinely said this to Sky - who I haven't caught actually lying yet -
then I would presume they are looking at the absolute numbers of Pillar1+Pillar2 positives, not just % changes

That's assuming PHE and DoH aren't staffed by utter fools
(which would bring other concerns)

PHE/DoH will be looking at areas on concern, BUT it's not that 36. That's quite clear from the data. The data on the map/list is Pillar One (The Mail do, at least, admit that in their article, other media that have picked it up are not doing so). A number of the councils on that list have issues statements this morning rubbishing it, and saying there is no concern.

There is indeed a list of places that need an eye to be kept on them, but it's this list, not the one the press are hawking.

not sure what happened to the chart, sorry...

@Derbygerbil as you say, appalling reporting from the media. To me, it looks like they are purposefully trying to stir up fear Yes, people need to be careful still and yes, there appears to be an issue in Leicester but overall, cases have decreased nationally over the last week. 7 out of the last 9 days have seen cases below 1000 but you don't seem to see that reported.