[quote littleowl1]Councils in England with Highest Cases per 100K of Population
I produced this table for a friend this morning and thought I would share here in case anyone else would find it useful.
It shows the councils in England with the highest cases per 100k of population up to Sept 11th (the most recent reliable date for council level data). I couldnt screesnhot all 315 councils but if you want to check any council that is not on this list, the same data is published here: www.covidmessenger.com/coronavirusliveupdate/[/quote]
Interesting. Yesterday when they said that there had been a significant readjustment for Bolton's figures upwards for a previous day's data they weren't wrong. That table really shows how much its going on.
The table LittleOwl has put up is data for the 11th as published on the 17th.
The Arcgis app data, which is the one that has been published by Reach newspapers, is updated at about 4pm and shows data for the day four days previous (so the last one was published for the 12th on yesterday on the 16th).
The delays in results is really showing if you compare the arcgis tables for the 10th and 12th (published on the 14th and 16th respectively). I can't find one for the 15th which would relate directly to the 11th but since we know the trend of the rate of cases is increasing in the vast majority of the top areas we can see the problem from these two data sets if you put them next to the covidmessenger table even though you can't compare directly.
For example Oadby and Wigston:
On the 14th the original data for the 10th put the seven day rate at 114.00
On the 16th the original data for the 12th put the seven day rate at
133.3
But the revised data from the 17th relating to the day inbetween both of the other charts seems to be showing its substantially higher on 145.6. If the trend is upward then thats bad news - its showing areas with data lag.
It does look like certain places are getting significantly longer data lags that others from this. I would suspect this MAY highlight local testing capacity issues and a greater reliance on home testing kits (though I could be wrong on this) and perhaps places more at risk of problems with the test shortages.
To show this more clearly, I've put the revised figure for the 11th (italics) next to the provisional for the 12th (plain) and the difference between the two (bold). Its interesting which areas seem to be popping up with figures which seem to suggest the biggest uptick in revision on the 11th.
Bolton 211.1 196.1 +15
Oadby and Wigston 145.6 133.3 +12.3
Hyndburn 127.1 112.3 14.8
Blackburn with Darwen 124.9 116.2 +8.7
Oldham 113 118.1 -5.1
Tameside 112.1 107.7 +4.4
Warrington 110.9 105.2 +5.7
Preston 104.1 120.9 -16.8
Liverpool 100 91.4 +8.6
Bradford 99.5 94.5 +5
Knowsley 98.8 98.8 0
Sunderland 98.7 82.5 +16.2
St Helens 98.6 91.4 +7.2
South Tyneside 98 78.2 +19.8
Burnley 97.8 113.6 -15.8
Wirral 92.0 85.5 +6.5
Rochdale 90.8 83.6 +7.2
Birmingham 90.8 83.6 +7.2
Bury 90.1 84.8 +5.3
Leicester 89.2 86.4 +2.8
I KNOW this is a fudge with data which isn't like for like (so will make data purist wince) but I think it does make a point about the reliability of the initial publication of the arcgis data and how much its underreporting - and where it might be underreporting most.
Why are there such huge differences between areas too? Sunderland and South Tyneside are looking worse on this front than anywhere else which has slightly surprised me tbh - but this should be a concern... and maybe precisely why its gone into lockdown as seemingly as abruptly as it has.
(note - i started this post before 4pm and when the next lot of data has come out).