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 💐

@SummerSazz eight cases sounds low, but based on an increase from 1, it is massive and suggests a trend. The modelling of virus transmission we were shown back in March of each person infecting multiple other people, who each infect multiple others, would suggest that the exponential increase into triple figures is well underway, especially after the increase in travel and indoor mixing of people already happening and being relaxed further this weekend. It is worrying, what was the point of lockdown if the government has reopened everything too early and is very reluctant to reintroduce any further restrictions and apparently doesn't have the power to do this locally.

@PatriciaHolm

Indeed, for instance, Gloucestershire is on the list of 36, but it’s almost at the bottom, with a rate of 0.6 cases per 100,000 over a week!

The methodology for identifying the 36 has been widely published, and it’s clear it was a hack looking for a sensationalist story and applying very dodgy analysis to get it. It worked, the story took off and has generated 1,000s of hits, but responsible, fact-based journalism it wasn’t.

If the PHE are genuinely focussing their efforts in the likes of Gloucestershire based on some hack’s absurdly dodgy analysis, then I would be deeply concerned! I genuinely don’t believe that will be the case.

@Derbygerbil thank you :) I saw that.

I should have said they need to publish the data in an accessible form & publicise it. In the interests of people not entirely losing their collective grips it needs to be not on a spreadsheet & on a far more accessible website - telling a worrying person to download an xls, click through the tabs, then scroll down the table is pointless - most people don't even have a clue what an UTLA is! The beta staging one is good - they should put it on there.

@Jrobhatch29
The research was done in Sweden, which it may be suggested would be keen to support any 'herd immunity' to Covid 19.

However, good news if true. Basically several studies now show IgG and IgM antibodies diminish over time with SARS Covid 19. Several studies also shown that T cells which form first line of defence as part of the innate immune system, are long lasting. One study showed cross immunity with SARS 1, lasting 17 years.

But.... T cells develop in Thymus which degenerates as you get old. Also can't be tested for easily on a large scale (but who knows maybe something being worked on), and not as efficient as antibodies especially against eg high viral load, so the immunity probably reduces symptom severity.

None (that I've seen) cases of reinfection , but still early days so we will have to wait and see how sterilising the T cell immunity is.

@PatriciaHolm

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

Have you got a link for this? I can't read much of the data. TIA

@conveniencestore - I agree it is worrying and needs def needs attention as they are doing. But saying Gloucestershire may be 'days away' from local lockdown is sensationalist IMO.

@SummerSazz - yes, being days away from local lockdown is sensationalist tosh. If anything, the infection rate will be left to increase for many weeks before anything like Leicester lockdown will take place. Someone on another thread thinks this news item was intended to deflect attention from some other bad news stories about testing capacity, pillar 2 case numbers increasing massively etc. The government want to reopen the country on the 4th July without any questions. Obviously everyone can see an increase from 1 case to 3 cases in pillar 1 testing (two weeks ago) is easy distraction when it is at the top of the DM website and everyone can laugh about a 200% increase being daft, while the pillar 2 case numbers and testing capacity are underreported.

@FurForksSake It's from the wonderful @rp131 on Twitter, who has lots of relevant charts.

some other bad news stories about testing capacity, pillar 2 case numbers increasing massively etc.

On the basis that total daily cases is continuing to reduce, I don’t think this can be it... unless they’re sitting on a huge backlog!

Twitter link for the top 20 weekly case figures - I opened the picture in a separate page for better viewing
pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb1PsDBXgAAyMiP?format=jpg&name=900x900

btw for whoever was looking at Wales - you cant relate daily admissions to that days tests because with more community testing people know they have the virus but dont necessarily go directly to hospital. Most cases will start off with symptoms that can be managed at home, they may not need hospital admission until a week or so later.

@Derbygerbil It is on the '36 areas in the UK...' thread. Apparently Deloitte who are involved in pillar 2 testing are not reporting their figures to PHE so PHE has no idea of the true scale of community infections. Just repeating what the poster said there. There are credible Financial Times links etc on that thread.

Pillar 2 cases overall aren't increasing; rates per 100,000 are steadily down across the board, with the exception of Yorkshire/Humber and East Midlands. There are clearly small pockets of concern, but overall incidence rates/hospitalisations/triage calls to NHS111 all show a steadily decline over the UK.

Local bubbles will arise. We just need to be prepared to pop them...

Institute & Faculty of Actuaries: Mortality Monitor Wk 25 of 2020

• death rates 3% lower than same week 2019
• 63,200 excess UK deaths to 19 June
• first week since March when 2020 death rates lower than 2019

https://www.actuaries.org.uk/system/files/field/document/Mortality-monitor-Week-25-2020-v01-2020-06-30.pdf

There were 3% fewer deaths registered in England & Wales in week 25 of 2020 than would have been expected if standardised mortality rates had been the same as week 25 of 2019.

This is the first week since late March that mortality in 2020 has been lower than in 2019,
however the difference is small and it is too early to tell whether this will persist.
....
The number of excess deaths was much higher than the number of deaths where COVID-19 was mentioned on the death certificate in weeks 13 to 17,
but this is not the case in later weeks,
and excess deaths have been lower than mentions of COVID-19 in weeks 21 to 25.

The Fourth Estate has regularly not managed to cover itself in glory from the outset of this pandemic, the "36" being the latest sorry example, and probably the lead contender for the 2020 Appalling Journalism Awards

irony alert! I think the good people of Surrey Heath should be worried - a district council, but even so a 500% week on week increase!!!!!!!!! Oh wait that takes Surrey Heath to the giddy heights of 5 cases (admittedly only Pillar 1), as compared to 1 the week before, and 3 in each of the two weeks prior to that. So currently averaging 3 P1 cases a week for a population just under 90,000. And some way from the 58 cases recorded in the district's worst week back in April. Surrey's weekly P1+P2 cases per 100,000 is 3.7 in the PHE file so 44 cases (if my maths is correct) across almost 1.2 million people.

@Derbygerbil - thanks for the file link. PHE must have a couple of files with the data for a couple more weeks, thier weekly surveillance reports introduced the weekly P!+P2 cases map a few iterations back. I can find the pdf reports going back many weeks on their website, but nothing for the data file you kindly linked.

I think (?) the next weekly PHE surveillance report is due out tomorrow so presumably an updated excel file should also be available? The latter would start to give a feel for direction of travel; although for county areas having district council level files would be more useful.

The overall P1/2 total is showing a downward trend, and a relatively small number of really quite significant spikes, suggesting, without wishing to be in any way complacent, that in the majority of areas the virus is being suppressed.

England worst weeks were around 45 cases per 100,000 people. Whilst Leicester is a spectacular outlier at 144 in the weekly tab, concern should also be in place for Barnsley 54.7; Bedford 42; Bradford 69.4 what is it with places starting with a B? and Rochdale 53.6

176 deaths
829 positive tests

Without reasonably prompt and honest information from the government
wild rumours are bound to circulate about all aspects of this crisis

An information vaccum will always be filled

I dread to think what rumours are on other social media
I'm only on MN and that's bad enough - the school threads are .... interesting

This from independent sage on Twitter is quite sobering

It is right that Pillar 2 results should be made available to the public but only by local authority not postcode

Thanks @BigChocFrenzy

UK deaths continue to remain stubbornly high... Only 57 of those were hospital ones too.

The numbers announced today include 117 deaths in the community (i.e. in care homes and at home) and many of those are reported with a very significant lag.

@Reastie

This from independent sage on Twitter is quite sobering

But it also doesn't make any sense.

Assume infections continue at, say, 4k a day, which is top end of current estimates. (That's tested cases + asymptomatic ones).

4000 a day for nine months = approx. 1,800,000 infections. For 20k deaths, we would need an Infection Fatality Rate of almost 2%. It's actually much much less than that when you take into account all the asymptomatic cases (which the 4k does); it's about 0.5%, according to the CEBM. Which would be around 5k deaths, if infection rates stay as they are AND it infects the same ratios of people by age (as IFRs are much higher in the 75+ plus group. If the bulk of our infections are now in the community, IFR should be lower).

@PatriciaHolm argh, this is why I get so confused about the whole situ. I ignore the stuff from dubious sources but places like the independent sage who advise the govt I assume to be a reliable and trustworthy source. I jut get so confused about what’s fact, what’s spin, what’s accurate, what’s not.

Independent SAGE are different from the SAGE that advise the Government (confusing I know!)

Last time I look at a piece of analysis from Independent Sage, they used IFR of 1% and a hypothetical (and absolutely unfounded) daily transmissions estimate of 8,000.

I do not think they can be calling themselves SAGE after that.