Pillar Two

[CarlaH]

So now I feel a right numpty.

Have been keeping my eyes on the daily figures and am suddenly realising that what I have been looking at are only hospital cases.

I had no idea what pillar one and pillar two are but it seems that pillar one is hospital/healthcare settings and pillar two are cases actually out in the community.

In other words people I might encounter while out and about.

I believe that the pillar two figures aren't available so we have no way of establishing our actual risk.

Could somebody tell me I am wrong because I was just starting to feel optimistic as cases and deaths appeared to have reduced considerably.

I thought I had been following all this quite closely until I discovered this 'pillar' business yesterday. Like the OP I have been wandering around feeling quite relaxed because I was looking at what I now realise was only pillar 1 data and it was showing tiny increases in my local area. Now I am panicking thinking I should have been more cautious because clearly the incidence is far higher than I thought. I wish they would make it easier for people to readily access local data.

BTW I found out about the 'pillars' from a lengthy Twitter thread, with a lot of very outraged people contributing, disgusted by what they saw as a deliberate government cover-up. Not sure to what extent the outrage is justified, but nothing would surprise me with this government. This is the thread:

twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1277960112691273728

The public should have easily accessible transparent data available to all including up- to- date local infections.

This was how the system was supposed to work when it was announced. I can remember that there was talk about how we'd be able to check this just like we checked the weather.

When I get a second I'll try and find reference to this

Instead we have PHE not even having a clue on this, never mind the public getting this information as promised.

It's all very well suggesting that anybody can be in your area including people from areas where the number of cases are higher but around my local roads the odds are most people I come into contact with are local.

Social distancing is definitely going out of the window and people seem far less keen on trying to avoid you than once they did.

How much I go out and where I go will be affected by the amount of risk I feel I might be taking.

I feel I have been taken in by these supposedly very small numbers of new cases.

All those saying 'behaviour shouldn't change' - pubs and restaurants are about to open. Garden centres, shops, national trust, even ordering take away has a risk (even if very small). If I need to buy something I've been putting off, I will get it now or if we are in a risk area, will put if off again for a bit. The same with ordering food from a loved restaurant and collecting it. It's all managing risk. And although minor, there is always some risk.

Thanks @RedToothBrush

Yes the restrictions have now lifted. But the information is now available.

But the information is now available.
Where ?
We are paying for it, we should be able to search it by postcode block
eg SW1 or SP6

• tests done
• negative tests
• positive tests

Yes where is it available please?

It's not available by postcode.

ULTA levels of cases per 100,000 for the last week are in the spreadsheet linked to on here - so local authority areas.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-covid-19-surveillance-reports

Growth rates are not available at this level, only at region level.

County Council Level is pointless
in my county that is 600,000 people and 50 miles side to side
if they do not have it by postcode
WHY NOT?
WE are paying for this stuff
in all senses of the word

Also that link says 238911 confirmed positive pillar 2
but there have been 4.7 MILLION pillar 2 tests done
so where have the negatives been?
where have the inconclusives been?
how many tests have not been returned?
how many were postal tests ? (less reliable)
how many by the testing centres? (more reliable)

It’s never going to be published by postcode. That’s identifiable

It’s never going to be published by postcode. That’s identifiable
BILGE
The death data is by smaller areas than that ...
SW7 does NOT make people identifiable
but it does allow people to assess their local risk.

It exists by postcode (apparently...) and local areas are getting access to it now according to Govt, but I agree, it's never going to be public at a granular level. I suspect ULTA (borough) detail might be as low as it gets in the public domain, though deaths are available more granularly.

LemonTT

What do you mean That's identifiable?

Pillar one is available by postcode.

Deaths are available at Middle Area Super Output Areas, which very roughly covers a mean population of 7,000.

I suspect tests aren't being recorded in the same way though as they are being recorded by multiple commercial providers.

I suspect tests aren't being recorded in the same way though as they are being recorded by multiple commercial providers.
Which is shit
they should be using ONE STANDARD FORM
how hard is that?

the job of Government is to protect the population
and the UK Government
are currently failing at that most basic of tasks

@CarlaH

LemonTT

What do you mean That's identifiable?

Pillar one is available by postcode.

Well no, it isn't, or not at postcode level. You can put in your postcode in the case trackers out there, but what that will get you is cases your local council area - mine has a population of 80,000 and covers a number of top level postcodes.

I would imagine that is as good as we'll get for P2, eventually...!

It’s available by postal district not postcode.

Thanks.

It’s available by postal district not postcode.
So SW rather than SW7
Pretty useless then

Most health data isnt available to the public at postcode level. Lowest will be super output area or borough/districts
The councils domt even have testing postcode data hence the issues with delays of local action in Leicester

Needcoffee
We do not need or want it at individual postcode level
even LAs will not fin that useful
but at secondary level (eg SE3 7 ) it should and could be available to all
there is no GDPR issue - as the ONS already reports deaths at that level
in a way that makes them identifiable

It is DISGRACEFUL that the "Government" is not protecting the population by informing them and their elected representative of life threatening risks

Of course LA s will find it useful !!
How do you think track and trace or outbreak management will work if they dont know where the cases are??

I didnt disagree with you I pointed out that most information ismt shared in that way normally. I didn't say I agreed or disagreed.

I do think there is a danger of people changing the guidelines to suit themselves based on non accurate data but people seem to do what they want with the guidelines anyway

Jennifer Williams @JenWilliamsMEN
On pillar 2. There’s been a bit of a mystery around the ‘gdpr’ problem that meant this data didn’t go to councils. One public health official says they reckon Deloitte - and everyone else procured by govt - were never told to notify this as a noticeable disease 1/

By default, this is a notifiable disease. But if that fact isn’t made clear by the govt people who hired you, you don’t necessarily collect the data accordingly. So, it seems, they didn’t. It wasn’t ‘robust and systematic’. “Hence the reluctance to share.”

Deloitte - as an outsourcer - would not automatically know that this was necessary.

This was ‘a rush to deliver activity without thinking through how you tackle the consequences’.

I asked them for their view of what Deloitte’s expertise in this comprises and the a was: “None at all.”

Having said that, suspect govt, in the absence of the local structures it should have had - partly because it tried its best to kill them from 2010 - went for what it knew.

Was the solution below par? Yep. But in 2020, we are where we are.

www.gov.uk/guidance/notifiable-diseases-and-causative-organisms-how-to-report
Covid-19 is listed as a notifable disease which must be reported to local authority proper officers under the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010 within 3 days or 24 hours in urgent cases.

It therefore is a legal requirement that Deloittes should have been passing on this information to local health authorities from day 1. Except because they are accountants, they didn't know this.