Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 12

999 replies

BigChocFrenzy · 06/07/2020 21:08

Welcome to thread 12 of the daily updates

Resource links:

Slides & data UK govt pressers
UK dashboard sub-national data, local authorities
Beta Uk dashboard deaths, cases, hospitals, tests, partially sub-national
UK stats updated daily by PHE & DHSC
ONS UK statistics for CV related deaths, released weekly each Tuesday
PHE surveillance report infections & deaths released every Thursday with sep. infographic
NHS England stats including breakdown by Hospital Trust
FT Daily updates
HSJ Healthcare updates
Worldometer UK page
Plot FT graphs compare countries deaths, cases / million pop. / log / linear
Covidly.com filter graphs compare countries
Plot COVID Graphs Our World in Data

We welcome factual, data driven, and civil discussions from all contributors 📈📶👍

OP posts:
Thread gallery
69
whatsnext2 · 19/07/2020 15:07

@BigChocFrenzy I believe you are also incorrect about latest R from CDC. They are estimating between 2 and 4, best estimate is 2.5.

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html

torydeathdrug · 19/07/2020 15:07

Are they counted in the daily figures though? My understanding is those are just people with positive tests.

^ this group of people did have a positive test though, otherwise the 28 days cutoff wouldn't apply to them.

It's people who had a positive test + died in the community + after 28 days from the positive test + not of covid (i.e. covid not mentioned on death certificate). I imagine that this group of people is so far quite small.

It you die after 28 days but still in hospital = counted as covid death, if you die after 28 days outside of hospital but covid contributed to your death (mentioned on death certificate) then it is still counted as a covid death by PHE if you had a positive test. If you didn't have a positive test then you are reported in the ONS numbers. That's where the PHE under counting came from but with such widespread testing now that shouldn't still be happening.

BigChocFrenzy · 19/07/2020 15:08

@Jrobhatch29

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bloomberg.com/amp/news/articles/2020-07-18/florida-s-desantis-says-virus-antibody-tests-show-16-positive

What do you all think of this?
16% antibodies in florida. Population of 21.5 million suggests 3.5 million infections.
Isnt that the same amount of infections predicted we have had?
Yet they have under 5000 deaths.
Whats gone so wrong?

The Florida surge has come several months after those in Europe, who had to deal with a "novel" Coronavirus; hence doctors and public health officials benefit from all the knowledge gained

imo, probable reasons as upthread:

. improvements in treatment, including O2 and cocktails of drugs
. the noticeably lower age of those infected after lockdown was relaxed
. improved immune systems in summer, compared to cooler March & April
. warmer weather is less optimum for COVID

Possibly also improved track & trace systems compared to UK in the early days

OP posts:
Littlebelina · 19/07/2020 15:10

@torydeathdrug

Are they counted in the daily figures though? My understanding is those are just people with positive tests.

^ this group of people did have a positive test though, otherwise the 28 days cutoff wouldn't apply to them.

It's people who had a positive test + died in the community + after 28 days from the positive test + not of covid (i.e. covid not mentioned on death certificate). I imagine that this group of people is so far quite small.

It you die after 28 days but still in hospital = counted as covid death, if you die after 28 days outside of hospital but covid contributed to your death (mentioned on death certificate) then it is still counted as a covid death by PHE if you had a positive test. If you didn't have a positive test then you are reported in the ONS numbers. That's where the PHE under counting came from but with such widespread testing now that shouldn't still be happening.

Yes at the moment. At time limit will miss some people dying in the community from complications of covid although the number will be small. The best thing would be to include people with covid on the death cert and a positive test (not matter when that was) but this would take more time to sort out.
Jrobhatch29 · 19/07/2020 15:11

@BigChocFrenzy all good points... But it seems staggering that there would be a difference of 40,000 deaths (more if you go off excess deaths) for the same amount of infections.

Littlebelina · 19/07/2020 15:12

Sorry, rereading I think we are both saying the same thing

BigChocFrenzy · 19/07/2020 15:16

[quote whatsnext2]@BigChocFrenzy I believe you are also incorrect about latest R from CDC. They are estimating between 2 and 4, best estimate is 2.5.

www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html[/quote]
....
I posted that CDC had estimated 5.7 - they have published a number of estimates
This was in an paper to be published this month, which disagreed with the lower value of R0

CDC
Volume 26, Number 7—July 2020
Research
High Contagiousness and Rapid Spread of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0282_article

"Assuming a serial interval of 6–9 days, we calculated a median R0 value of 5.7 (95% CI 3.8–8.9). "

OP posts:
Coquohvan · 19/07/2020 15:16

@BigChocFrenzy

"Did we know about about the BAME Factor this early?"

Coquohvan We knew about the massive dominance of age as a risk, from China
As upthread, BAME is a much smaller increased risk in comparison to age
(politics increases its prominance)

The issue was that retired doctors were asked to return, whatever their race

Not just in the UK, but in some other countries e.g. France

I am aware of the massive dominance of age risk, our UK medics volunteered to help with our crisis sadly losing their lives in doing so. Probably the BAME risk in mid March wasn’t highlighted/known as age most definitely was. Hero’s all of them IMO
PatriciaHolm · 19/07/2020 15:17

*Yes, that's what I mean. The daily figures only include those with a positive test. These are the ones included in our death toll of just over 45k used by the uk government/worldometer. A time limit on positive risks missing some of those."

Ah, no, because the time limit would only apply if you both die outside of hospital AND don't have CV on your death certificate.

If you die outside of hospital more than 28 days after a positive test BUT have CV on your certificate, you would still count under the daily numbers even with a 28 day cut off, because you have CV on your death cert. Your positive test would still count in that case.

A 28 day cut off shouldn't stop people being counted if CV contributed to their deaths as it would only apply if the person dies outside of hospital and didn't have CV on their certificate.

Humphriescushion · 19/07/2020 15:25

Can i ask clarify this as well - i thought I understood and now am not sure.
So government annonuced deaths - 45,000 are for those with a positive test only?
Ons figure of 55000 (ish when i last looked) are for those with covid mentioned on the death certifcate?
Excess is excess and is clear to me at least.

BigChocFrenzy · 19/07/2020 15:27

With 10% of cases producing 80-90% of the spread, I wonder if it is much more difficult to calculate / agree on R0 for COVID,
compared to viruses with a much higher K, i.e. uniform spread, such as flu

Changing parameters / case input dataset slightly could considerably affect the result ?

OP posts:
Littlebelina · 19/07/2020 15:29

@PatriciaHolm

*Yes, that's what I mean. The daily figures only include those with a positive test. These are the ones included in our death toll of just over 45k used by the uk government/worldometer. A time limit on positive risks missing some of those."

Ah, no, because the time limit would only apply if you both die outside of hospital AND don't have CV on your death certificate.

If you die outside of hospital more than 28 days after a positive test BUT have CV on your certificate, you would still count under the daily numbers even with a 28 day cut off, because you have CV on your death cert. Your positive test would still count in that case.

A 28 day cut off shouldn't stop people being counted if CV contributed to their deaths as it would only apply if the person dies outside of hospital and didn't have CV on their certificate.

Agreed, this is what needs to happen if a time limit is applied and I assume what happens in other countries?
torydeathdrug · 19/07/2020 15:56

yes the 'time limit' is the small but growing group who have a positive test & then go on to die outside hospital >28 days later of a cause NOT related to covid (ie not on death cert). If you die 'of' covid ie within 28 days of a positive test &/or it is mentioned on your death certificate at any point then you are counted. Ditto the long stay patients in hospital - this is only people who die in the community.

ShootsFruitsAndLeaves · 19/07/2020 15:56

I am aware of the massive dominance of age risk, our UK medics volunteered to help with our crisis sadly losing their lives in doing so. Probably the BAME risk in mid March wasn’t highlighted/known as age most definitely was. Hero’s all of them IMO

Erm, the point I've been making and that @BigChocFrenzy has mentioned as well is that in any model the risk of death doubles every 6 year or so. So a retired doctor in his 70s may have hundreds of the times the risk of death of a junior doctor of 25.

The BAME point has been shouted from the rafters, but that's really about structural inequalities rather than any inherent fragility of brown/black people once infected.

The specific structural inequalities are:

  • poor people in general have worse diet, worse education, lower income, work in jobs that were not furloughable ethnic minorities are massively* concentrated in the areas which experienced the full force of covid-19 (particularly London). certain ethnic minorities are much* more likely to work in jobs that are specifically at risk, over and above jobs generally. For example, a very high % of taxi drivers are Bangladeshi and Pakistani men.
  • certain ethnic minorities are likely to have been born outside the UK and will have a different (and absent) medical history, exposure to certain infectious diseases, early diet malnutrition, etc.

The structural inequalities whereby black men, for example, are less likely than white men, to be working in office jobs meant that black men were more likely to catch covid at work.

That doesn't mean that bin men in London who are black are more at risk than bin men in London who are white, for example.

Also we don't really know the extent to which culture, education, religion, makes certain populations more likely to spread covid, for example due to extended families, prevalance of attending regular worship, amount of socialization, etc.

So it is almost certain that being male as opposed to female makes you more likely to die following infection by a factor of around 2x.

It is also certain that being 70 as opposed to 17 means you are hundreds of times more likely to die following infection.

For two people of comparable health, living conditions, job, one of whom is black and one of whom is white, the risk is likely to be identical or all but.

It might be that the black worker is more likely on average to live with an elderly relative, for example, but this would not be something we should evaluate on a population level by sending non-white people home from work.

Rather we would look at people's home conditions, health (including morbid obesity) age, and sex, and then try to work out a sort of priority list.

For example, a couple in their 30s in normal health would not be furloughed, while a single woman of 45 who was morbidly obese might be. And a person of 25 who lived with an 80 year old grandparent might be.

The extent to which ethnicity becomes important is if for example we can find structural racism, for example, clearly the bins need to be emptied, but for example jobs which are disproportionately done by ethnic minorities that are not given the same of protection as jobs where ethnic minorities are less prevalent.

The problem is this is quite hard, in that care workers on NMW are clearly lower paid, less educated, often ESL speakers, and inherently less likely to complain than, say, senior consultants.

Firefliess · 19/07/2020 16:10

Re Florida - part of the reason their death rate is lower is that they've not yet reached the peak - most people have caught it in the last few weeks so not yet died (or deaths but yet recorded) So their death rate is likely to double or more yet.

PatriciaHolm · 19/07/2020 16:22

Today's numbers - 27 deaths all settings, 726 cases.

ShootsFruitsAndLeaves · 19/07/2020 16:31

Also bear in mind that the ONS found a fairly straightforward relationship between being in a man in a routine job and a greater risk of dying from covid .

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/causesofdeath/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19relateddeathsbyoccupationenglandandwales/latest

There was a similar but reduced risk of dying for professional men.

So we know very clearly that people in certain jobs are being killed by covid, because of those jobs. Some of the highest risk jobs happen to have fewer ethnic minorities, such as construction.

So it really is a class/job thing in that white people in routine jobs died even when there were few ethnic minorities doing those jobs.

But it tells a better story for the media to focus on the ethnicity, not to mention there are lots of specific ethnic minority lobby groups , whereas there doesn't seem to be much interest in addressing the specific risk to frontline workers.

Jrobhatch29 · 19/07/2020 16:36

@Firefliess

Re Florida - part of the reason their death rate is lower is that they've not yet reached the peak - most people have caught it in the last few weeks so not yet died (or deaths but yet recorded) So their death rate is likely to double or more yet.
This is from antibody screening though? It was carried out a few weeks ago and I thought it took a few weeks before antibodies could be detected? So it doesn't seem like this 3.5 million infections have happened that recently that the deaths just havent occured yet. Maybe I am just not understanding it... What I mean is if antibodies have been detected the infection wont have been from the past 2-3 weeks surely?
ListeningQuietly · 19/07/2020 16:49

In the US many, many families have incomplete vaccination / healthcare records
(because health care access is linked to employment)
and the impact of deductibles where you pay the first $2000 of any treatment mean that families are not in the habit of going to doctors if they can still walk
but they go to work because the US does not have sick pay / maternity pay / contraception protected

Therefore the pool of infection stays swirling

Compare
my local Sainsburys - huge superstore in deprived area .... no covid cases but all permanent staff get regular health checks and the doctor's surgery is next door
all staff allowed to move locations (warehouse / tills / shelves) depending on risk

a Walmart in a red state (red is right wing in the US)

  • no sick pay
  • no maternity pay
  • no child care
  • no health cover for those on less than 20 hours a week

the results are clear

but the Lansley 2013 changes are part of the path of taking the NHS to a US system .... be warned

oldbagface · 19/07/2020 17:00

Can I ask about risk and schools please. Secondary schools are pretty much going back to normal. No masks or distancing.

Can you see this being very risky?

ListeningQuietly · 19/07/2020 17:10

Can I ask about risk and schools please.
Nobody knows
because they shut the schools
the only study is Sweden - where kids did NOT pass it to teachers

and the damage of keeping schools shut is so existentially massive that teachers are just going to have to work with full re opening

Piggywaspushed · 19/07/2020 17:18

LQ, is there evidence for that fact about Sweden?

ListeningQuietly · 19/07/2020 17:23

Piggy
I'll have to dig it up - was referenced by both MD in Private Eye and New Scientist
and Sweden is one of the few places with
(a) open schools
(b) good data
but in the bigger scheme - we all have no effing idea
and teachers may be at risk
bit kids are MOST DEFINTELY AT RISK if schools stay shut

you can be a Year 6 teacher for 30 years
but each year 6 pupil only passes through once

Hopefuly localisation of risk management will help
eg my city of 300,000 had 11 cases last week, all in over 70's
that screams to me that the schools should re open
and I live in a city that is part of research testing

ListeningQuietly · 19/07/2020 17:28

Piggywaspushed
Did not take long
uk.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-sweden-schools/swedens-health-agency-says-open-schools-did-not-spur-pandemic-spread-among-children-idUKKCN24G2IS

Get your colleagues to wear visors
to get the kids to wear masks in corridors
to remind the boys to wash their hands
to ban the whale game

and then get the kids back in to school ASAP
so that you can teach them how to save the planet from Climate change Smile

CKBJ · 19/07/2020 17:35

Re schools this was linked in a different thread but very relevant:

“A major peer reviewed study into transmission in South Korea that tweens and teens spread the SARSCOV2 virus more than any other group.”

Published Paper:
wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/10/20-1315_article

Article on the paper:

www.bloombergquint.com/business/covid-19-spread-fastest-by-teens-and-tweens-korea-study-finds

Swipe left for the next trending thread