Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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 18

999 replies

BigChocFrenzy · 12/09/2020 18:03

Welcome to thread 18 of the daily updates

Resource links:

Uk dashboard deaths, cases, hospitals, tests - 4 nations, English regions & LAs
Imperial UK weekly LAs, cases / 100k, table, map, hotspots
MSAO Map of English cases
Cases Tracker England Local Government
ONS MSAO Map English deaths
CovidMessenger live update by council district in England
Scot gov Daily data
Scotland TravellingTabby LAs, care homes, hospitals, tests, t&t
PH Wales LAs, tests, ONS deaths
NI Dashboard
Zoe Uk data
UK govt pressers Slides & data
ICNRC Intensive Care National Audit & Research reports
NHS t&t England & UK testing Weekly stats
R estimates UK & English regions
PHE Surveillance report infections & watchlists each Thursday
ONS England infection surveillance report each Friday
Datasets for ONS surveillance reports
ONS Roundup deaths, infections & economic reports
ECDC rolling 14-day incidence EEA & UK
Worldometer UK page
Our World in Data test positivity etc, DIY graphs
FT DIY graphs compare deaths, cases, raw / million pop
Covidly.com world summary & graphs
Alama Personal COVID risk assessment

==> Our STUDIES Corner

OP posts:
Thread gallery
50
BigChocFrenzy · 15/09/2020 22:50

I posted upthread Kucharski's excellent explanation of why herd immunity without a vaccine lead to "overshoot":

20-50% more of the population becoming infected than the actual % needed for herd immunity
Very ruthless and wasteful of lives

OP posts:
itsgettingweird · 15/09/2020 22:58

@Timeforanotherusername

itsgettingweird this contradicts what other health professionals are saying. Like the Dr from Birmingham (QE I think) that said it was the same virus as before and there were not any significant variations.

I think sometimes people embellish the situation.

We need to fear this virus and adapt our behaviour. I do agree that the biggest risk is that people are not going to do that.

But I do think this person is scaremongering.

They know and I've read it that there are various strains.

Like flu.

What they don't know yet is what that means with regards immunity. They know less till about the virus than they need to know and less than we are being led to believe.

In terms of being novel it's very very early days to really know what we are dealing with.

Sunshinegirl82 · 15/09/2020 23:17

Coronaviruses do not mutate in the same way as flu viruses. The nature of the virus means that mutations are less common and less significant.

This article is a few months old now but I think provides a good explanation of why coronaviruses are general quite stable and less likely to mutate significantly than flu viruses.

www.city-journal.org/coronavirus-vaccine

BigChocFrenzy · 15/09/2020 23:49

"I've read it that there are various strains"

Yea, but virologists state that the strains don't vary significantly in their severity / lethality
The virus now in Europe is basically the same as back in March

The difference now is that after lockdown and then months of SD, there are only a tiny % of the cases now
and those cases we have show a much lower infection age
Hence the v low deaths

OP posts:
CoffeeandCroissant · 16/09/2020 00:43

^
Researchers still have more questions than answers about coronavirus mutations, and no one has yet found any change in SARS-CoV-2 that should raise public-health concerns.^

^Sequencing data suggest that coronaviruses change more slowly than most other RNA viruses, probably because of a ‘proofreading’ enzyme that corrects potentially fatal copying mistakes. A typical SARS-CoV-2 virus accumulates only two single-letter mutations per month in its genome — a rate of change about half that of influenza and one-quarter that of HIV, says Emma Hodcroft, a molecular epidemiologist at the University of Basel, Switzerland.

Other genome data have emphasized this stability — more than 90,000 isolates have been sequenced and made public (see www.gisaid.org). Two SARS-CoV-2 viruses collected from anywhere in the world differ by an average of just 10 RNA letters out of 29,903, says Lucy Van Dorp, a computational geneticist at University College London, who is tracking the differences for signs that they confer an evolutionary advantage.^

A team led by Andrew Rambaut, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Edinburgh, UK, epidemiologist Erik Volz, at Imperial College London, and biologist Thomas Connor at Cardiff University, studied the UK spread of 62 COVID-19 clusters seeded by D viruses and 245 by G viruses7. The researchers found no clinical differences in people infected with either virus.

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02544-6

Nellodee · 16/09/2020 06:36

@BigChocFrenzy

Risk Excellent table from Spiegelhalter of risk from COVID and increased overall risk of death, during the earlier 16 peak weeks:
Sorry to harp on this, but I think you've misinterpreted this one.

It shows the raw death figures for each age group, then it shows the population total for that age group (not the amount of people who had Covid, but the total population). It shows what percentage of that age group actually died during a set period, not what percentage of that age group who had Covid died during a set period.

So, according to this, it's not saying that your chances of dying with Covid if you are over 90 is 2.04%, it's saying that 2.04% of over 90 year olds died of Covid during that set period, which is very different.

The end figure is not saying that if you catch Covid, it is the same amount of risk as living for an extra 35 days (although it seems to be implying this by its title) but rather, this is the amount of days it would usually have taken for the same amount of people of that age group to die of all other causes in a normal year.

BighouseLittlemouse · 16/09/2020 08:26

@littleowl1 - apologies I tagged you on the wrong thread!

But wanted to say how useful the numbers per 100 000 are, although depressing for my borough which is now at 30 per 100 000 - does anyone know how far off watch list that is? It’s definitely widespread community spread - it’s been very depressing to watch it grow from about 8 to now over 100 cases in the last few weeks.

littleowl1 · 16/09/2020 08:48

Glad you find the cases per 100k useful in the emails. I’m actually looking at adding watchlist status for each council also - hopefully next week. I read a good summary from PHE last week explaining the criteria for going on watchlist. I will try and dig it out. But in summary, it’s based on a variety of factors including the cases per 100k. I will have a rummage around later for the doc and post it here when I find it.

For anyone who hasn’t already done so, you are most welcome to sign up for daily emails notifying you of the number of cases in your local council at www.covidmessenger.com

Reastie · 16/09/2020 08:59

Littleowl1 per 100,000 is fantastic, thank yiu. I can’t tell you how useful I find the emails.

Is it over 5 cases per 100,000 people returning from other countries have to self isolate? Locally in the past week a number of my local areas have increased from below this to way beyond. It doesn’t bode well.

SistemaAddict · 16/09/2020 09:10

@littleowl1 I'm very grateful for my morning email. 48.4 for us now and we were 8 a couple of weeks back.

Ecosse · 16/09/2020 09:12

It’s 20 per 100,000 for isolation @Reastie.

Reastie · 16/09/2020 09:15

Thanks Ecosse. I wonder what level sets off an area to the govt watch list.

Augustbreeze · 16/09/2020 09:16

New info is fab @littleowl1 !

MarshaBradyo · 16/09/2020 09:17

Littleowl great update, very useful

RedToothBrush · 16/09/2020 09:30

although depressing for my borough which is now at 30 per 100 000 - does anyone know how far off watch list that is?

Well Warrington was up into the 80 or 90s on Friday with a skyrocketing rate of acceleration in cases, when PHE put their last watch list out on Friday - and it wasn't on the list even though there were places with lower numbers that were.

So i think it's a case of who ever is making this decision having a complex algorithm which involves picking a number, any number between 40 and 120 dividing it by 7 then multiply it by their age to decide if your area is now an area of concern or not.

Having a Tory MP also appears to help keep you off the list given the forced uturn when, against any logical reasoning, Trafford and Bolton were removed from local restrictions only for them to be reinstated hours later...

... There is no magic local lockdown number just a bunch of dickheads who have no idea what they are doing.

(This is my reasoned, evidence based conclusion)

alreadytaken · 16/09/2020 09:32

This is a data thread, we dont do scaremongering. No evidence that mutations in the virus have been either negative or positive.

alreadytaken · 16/09/2020 09:34

Warrington went up pretty fast, to be fair, so looks like most people there were ignoring the rules and got unlucky with a superspreader (or several). I imagine it will be on the next intervention list.

MadamHoooch · 16/09/2020 09:37

Where can I see the cases per 100k in my area?

Frazzled2207 · 16/09/2020 09:46

the problem with the watch list is that now many many LA areas have shot up with their cases per 100,000. So there's too many of them to have a meaningful list. Vast swathes of the north and north east, cities in the midlands and pockets elsewhere.

Worldgonecrazy · 16/09/2020 09:51

Does anyone know where it is possible to find historic data on numbers of patients in ICU on ventilators? Without annual context for seasonal flu and pneumonia infections it is just a scaremongering figure. And is there somewhere which gives what number of those on ventilators actually have Covid? Given the much higher number of flu versus Covid deaths it may help ease Covid fears somewhat?

RedToothBrush · 16/09/2020 09:53

@alreadytaken

Warrington went up pretty fast, to be fair, so looks like most people there were ignoring the rules and got unlucky with a superspreader (or several). I imagine it will be on the next intervention list.
The problem was obvious to me by mid week. I know others who have been keeping a close eye on it with alarm. Someone has definitely been caught napping. Its the job of PHE not to let places slip through the net in the first place.

so looks like most people there were ignoring the rules and got unlucky with a superspreader
It has precovid levels of footfall. People did what they were asked and went back to shopping and eating out. It was vulnerable due to that so a closer eye should have been on it anyway. People breaking the rules doesn't come into it when youve got that level of return to normal - there is an obvious level of increased risk. Saying it got unlucky and it was about people breaking the rules is based on no evidence at all. Its unhelpful.

It will be on the list this week, if not in special measures.

Mummabeary · 16/09/2020 09:56

@itsgettingweird

Please accept I know this is anecdotal. But I've been speaking to an infection control nurse this evening. This virus is not good. It's still very novel and it's believed its mutating rapidly. There seems to be people who are exposed continuously and never catch it. Some who have tested positive twice but are t showing symptoms past first infection and therefore could be silent spreaders.

Talk of and preparation for peak in October but also next February.

Highest risk right now is people's behaviour. But by the time it gets serious and people change behaviour it's too late - hence why struggling to get under control in NE.

Cases are much higher than currently recorded because of testing issues.

And even areas like my town that have weeks of no cases are seeing doubling every week currently and that's just the ones we know
of.

Herd immunity cannot be an aim because it's like trying to get herd immunity for flu where they strain changes every year.

Scary conversation and I wish all the nay sayers would wake up and smell coffee of the realistic situation.

Actually, if true, I would interpret this anecdotal evidence as positive.
  1. "people who are exposed continuously and never catch it" - well this would then support the theory of the immunological dark matter that some scientists have suggested and throw a lot of the models currently being used to predict how the pandemic will grow out of control out of the window
  2. "some who have tested positive twice but aren't showing symptoms past first infection" - this shows that an initial infection causes some immune response that stops people getting ill the second time with no evidence they are infectious 2nd time. Or it shows the limits & challenges of the PCR test and the fact that a lot of the time a 'case isn't actually a case in the medical sense. It's just a positive test result and that's all it is.
BighouseLittlemouse · 16/09/2020 09:58

Thanks @RedToothBrush Grin.

I do assume there is some type of algorithm. Our borough is rising quite fast ( roughly up a third week on week). We’ve had various tweets and a video from the Tory council saying it’s rising and is largely due to returning holiday makers and amongst white young people. Can’t imagine that many subscribe to the council’s twitter feed Confused. There has also been a mobile testing centre at the weekend - but only with appointment ( don’t know anyone whose managed to get one!). Thanks to @littleowl1 emails I’ve been watching it rise and am a bit surprised there hasn’t been a bit more publicity from the council. Most people are blissfully unaware and still assuming the very low rate it was before.

SarahMused · 16/09/2020 10:00

BigChocFrenzy China appear not to be counting cases when people are asymptomatic but have a positive pcr. This seems to be in line with other illnesses where a clinical diagnosis is normally required to be considered a case. mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23915R?__twitter_impression=true

IloveJKRowling · 16/09/2020 10:22

@littleowl1 Really helpful seeing the new info.

I'm not sure I believe the data any more though. How many people have children with a fever, try for days to get a test, fail and their kids symptoms have gone so give up? I am almost at that point.

When you try and get a test you have to put in your details. Surely there should be some record of how many people logged in and how many actually got slot for a test? Is this available anywhere? I can't find anything.

I can see why they wouldn't want to release it but it would be useful data to have.

DD no longer has symptoms, have been trying for 3 days and not offered anything yet, no tests at home, walk-in or drive through. She is bouncing off the walls and the picture of health (that typical little kid fast recovery). I have a cold now too (presumably what she had - no fever or cough or any other covid symptoms).

DD is completely symptom free, so does that increase likelihood of false negatives, should I manage to get a test? At what point do I just give up? It says in document linked that "Sampling too late. Viral shedding declines after symptoms have peaked [6]. Samples taken at this stage of infection will show an increased false negative rate"

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895843/S0519_Impact_of_false_positives_and_negatives.pdf

The temptation to give up and assume it's just a cold is very strong.

The test site actually asks you 'do you have coronavirus symptoms' well the answer to that for DD is now 'no'. So should I not be trying any more anyway?