Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 20

[BigChocFrenzy]

Welcome to thread 20 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
Modelling real number of infections February to date
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 reports & LA Local Watchlist Maps by LSOA
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 GB test positivity etc, DIY country graphs
FT DIY graphs compare deaths, cases, raw / million pop
Alama Personal COVID risk assessment
Local Mobility Reports for countries
UK Highstreet Tracker for cities & large towns Footfall, spend index, workers, visitors, economic recovery

⏭ Our STUDIES Corner ⏮

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

Request to posters giving a link:
Please do so in full, so people can see in advance what they are clicking
Also at least a brief title so we know what the link is about

@RedToothBrush - this is what you wanted for the community stats: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-life-survey-201920

red After years, in fact decades, of encouraging people to prioritise their own interests,
of individualism vs the "social contract" in e.g. Scandinavia, Germany,
tax cuts vs maintaining public services & benefits

then appeals to community togetherness are less successful
... especially in communities that have suffered more than others as a result of such policies

Maybe the UK authorities need to appeal more to self-interest, because that could drive those who don't comply with rules,
vs those who do comply

[quote MRex]@RedToothBrush - this is what you wanted for the community stats: www.gov.uk/government/statistics/community-life-survey-201920[/quote]
...
excellent data there 👏🏽

Oh no @BigChocFrenzy. I can't because it's very long and I'm on a mobile. Try this link: digital.nhs.uk/dashboards/progression-full-width

[quote MRex]Oh no @BigChocFrenzy. I can't because it's very long and I'm on a mobile. Try this link: digital.nhs.uk/dashboards/progression-full-width[/quote]
.....
I already tried that
I'll send them an error report

I wonder if it is just iPad - I have the latest IOS version 13, so it is fully up to date

MRex that daily dashboard has alarm bells for me straight away.

You would expect covid triages to be highest in areas with the most cases. Places you'd expect to be higher on the list do seem to be nearer the top.

But you've got a few places on there which currently have a small number of cases but are scoring very highly for covid triage. Why? You have to ask the question about what is going on in those places and whether they are likely candidate for new spikes appearing on the case data.

I also notice that places at the bottom of the list are all particularly affluent / have high levels of education.

Blackpool being top of the list is a worry too. High levels of deprivation and it was deliberately left off the local restriction list for some reason.

Then there were warning for people to stay away by the police which were ignored:

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-54224544
Blackpool crowds ignore Covid 'last blast' warning

Thanks for the screenshot, red
Grr, very frustrating I can't load that useful-looking dashboard

IOS 14 has just popped up, so I'll try installing that

I'm also concerned about this caveat , or have I misunderstood ?
Under "What this data shows"

"Caveats

1. NHS Pathways 111/999 triages: This data shows the latest information relating to the triage of coronavirus symptoms triaged through NHS Pathways by callers to NHS 111 and 999.

It reports the triages which have received a potential coronavirus (COVID-19) final disposition.

This is a count of number of assessments, not the number of people.
This data is based on signs and symptoms reported by members of the public and is not based on the outcomes of tests for coronavirus.

The North West, Yorkshire, East Midlands, East of England, London, and South Western Ambulance Services use another system to triage calls to 999.
Therefore, for UTLAs in those areas, data here will not include most 999 calls related to COVID-19."

111 triages, as in your screenshot, looks more reliable though

You would expect covid triages to be highest in areas with the most cases. Places you'd expect to be higher on the list do seem to be nearer the top. But you've got a few places on there which currently have a small number of cases but are scoring very highly for covid triage. Why? You have to ask the question about what is going on in those places and whether they are likely candidate for new spikes appearing on the case data.

Yes, I can't make sense of it at all. If we assume the triage data is correct (and it seems that it is more likely to be than necessarily cases given testing problems) it suggests that the cases data in some areas are wildly wrong. It's suggesting that far more of the country is really at the levels of infection of NE and NW than previously thought.

I've got to say I find this very worrying indeed. I've been trying to figure out when I take smallest DD out of nursery. She loves it and gets so much from it, but if she gets it my viral load will be enormous as she usually insists on sleeping on me during any illness.

... but I can't read any numbers on the screenshot !
I hope they sort out this Beta version quickly

In the last thread, someone was mentioning about the appeal to family interests, the individualistic approach being "my family and friends", rather than the collective "all humans". Somewhere in the middle might be "my area" / "my country". It makes sense to me.
We have an example to analyse: "don't kill Granny" was widely criticised, "fix test/trace, make rules simpler, don't blame individuals". That anger doesn't matter to the question - did the message get through (so nobody should care how pissed off people feel about it), or did it not?
Now, of course there are other routes to using the family appeal message, but this is one example that should be old enough to tell us something.

So, to the data, the message was Preston 7th August.
Matt Hancock picked up using the phrase a month later, so he thinks that message works?
Stats for Preston show they muddled along with low-ish cases in August, then cases took off in September: coronavirus.data.gov.uk/cases?areaType=ltla&areaName=Preston. So, that's the opposite of what was wanted, but it was also somewhat expected given rises in the region and a general sense of non-compliance.
Next, checking hospital stats for deaths, I've no idea. Preston hospital (Lancashire Teaching Hospitals Trust) has low admissions for those cases, so did people at least try not to visit Granny, even if their other risks stayed high: www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/?
Anyone else fancy a stab at analysing this case to verify the impact?

Is this any better?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54255635

Sir Patrick did point out the 50,000 figure was not a prediction. But it was used in the knowledge it would grab the headlines

Why? One person close to the decision-making told me it was about influencing behaviour - to try to persuade the public to redouble its efforts

So it seems the medical presser was not an attempt at getting the science across, it was still pure politicising without the politicians, I think this was a huge mistake, they had some credibility and this loses it.

And now we still don't know what their actual predictions are - why would they hide it?

Without knowing how many of the triaged people are confirmed cases, it's hard to draw any definite conclusions other than both Covid and other respiratory diseases are increasing. Numbers for eg Plymouth are very high considering the apparent disease levels - though as we've seen with the school situation everwhere, there are are lots of kids and teachers with colds, coughs and other autumnal lurgies.

Since it's assessments of potential coronavirus not actual confirmed, would viruses circulating with symptoms similar to coronavirus account for the difference?

You'd then expect the numbers going for tests to be higher in those areas too but the positivity rate to be lower?

Interestingly, I live in an area with high triages/ low cases. We have enormous numbers who have a cold, typical rhinovirus with streaming noses and some with sore throat. I have the nose too, but almost better. Plus pre-school flu vaccinations were just done. So, how many people will be calling to see if they need a test for sore throat, or brief vaccine fever? In my experience, I could name quite a few who I know called. There is a mobile testing unit advertised by the council every 3-4 days throughout September, but the local paper says people aren't being allocated slots because of lab capacity.
It doesn't feel like March when people were ill with fever and cough, so I'm not worried. Yet. But I'll be keeping an eye on that table.
We really need to find regional test positivity data somewhere, at UTLA level.

@MRex
I'd love to but it's a much bigger piece. My first thoughts without checking back articles.

1. there is no one message in the uk that is worth analyzing in itself, as there were always many messages that didn't correlate with each other, or simply said the exact opposite.
2. The messages have not been delivered in a clear and consistent way across the board.
3. the "problem" with slogans can be if they are not clearly explained to the t, then translations by mediums can dilute the msg to the point of meaningless or opposite. In this case the gov guidances for the 3 word slogans kept changing, just like the DfE guidance at 2am in the morning (feel free to correct me if i remember incorrectly), so after a very short period, nobody (journos) bothered to actually read through and kept on with the old msg or jumped on the new one.
4. Comms have to form part of a strategy, otherwise it's blabber. So to analyze one slogan, we would need to put it in context of:

• what was the strategy at the time
• was that strategy communicated to the masses and how

1. There would need to be a list of other factors that can enhance/dilute the msg and see if they were in play and to what extent

the 3 pillars of comms are sending, receiving comms and feedback. UK is lacking feedback as we (here) do more on analysing data and trying to find/uncover correlations, interesting tidbits, than we get from gov.

@BigChocFrenzy
From the top of your head, how would you describe this in Germany?
statement: People are widely aware of the government's covid strategy, they get clear messages on what to do at this point in time and they are being let know if it worked or not and the messages/action points change based on behaviour of the population.

Anyone else in any other country?

That's what I put as my request on the table, inclusion of test positivity.

Sorry, just to add - one other metric, almost nobody in the hospital with covid right now according to stats and midwife neighbour (who's understandable scared of winter right now).

@sirfredfredgeorge

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54255635

Sir Patrick did point out the 50,000 figure was not a prediction. But it was used in the knowledge it would grab the headlines

Why? One person close to the decision-making told me it was about influencing behaviour - to try to persuade the public to redouble its efforts

So it seems the medical presser was not an attempt at getting the science across, it was still pure politicising without the politicians, I think this was a huge mistake, they had some credibility and this loses it.

And now we still don't know what their actual predictions are - why would they hide it?

.... Thatarticle states "it is far from a given"

I understand that this is one of a number of possible scenarios
Giving several scenarios makes the message more confusing and will turn off many people who won;t invest the time to examine them all

With 40 years experience of modelling highly complex situations,
I know there is no single prediction when modelling a situation that is so dependable on so many variables that are sometimes interacting and cannot be determined,
including public behaviour in different parts of the country

[quote TheSunIsStillShining]@MRex
I'd love to but it's a much bigger piece. My first thoughts without checking back articles.

1. there is no one message in the uk that is worth analyzing in itself, as there were always many messages that didn't correlate with each other, or simply said the exact opposite.
2. The messages have not been delivered in a clear and consistent way across the board.
3. the "problem" with slogans can be if they are not clearly explained to the t, then translations by mediums can dilute the msg to the point of meaningless or opposite. In this case the gov guidances for the 3 word slogans kept changing, just like the DfE guidance at 2am in the morning (feel free to correct me if i remember incorrectly), so after a very short period, nobody (journos) bothered to actually read through and kept on with the old msg or jumped on the new one.
4. Comms have to form part of a strategy, otherwise it's blabber. So to analyze one slogan, we would need to put it in context of:

• what was the strategy at the time
• was that strategy communicated to the masses and how

1. There would need to be a list of other factors that can enhance/dilute the msg and see if they were in play and to what extent

the 3 pillars of comms are sending, receiving comms and feedback. UK is lacking feedback as we (here) do more on analysing data and trying to find/uncover correlations, interesting tidbits, than we get from gov.

@BigChocFrenzy
From the top of your head, how would you describe this in Germany?
statement: People are widely aware of the government's covid strategy, they get clear messages on what to do at this point in time and they are being let know if it worked or not and the messages/action points change based on behaviour of the population.

Anyone else in any other country?[/quote]
....
imo almost everyone here understand the basic message,
even though the 16 states have autonomy and resources to apply the rules accoording to local conditions

• or maybe local control is one reason public support and trust remains high and people understand what to do.

I haven't seen a specific poll on understanding, just on agreement / support

Polls have always shown high support for govt policy on Corona

• recent polls have Merkel with 82% approval rating

and only 10% think measures are too strict

The RKI give out their assessment in their daily report:
Merkel has advisers from RKI and other scientists, e.g. chief virologist Drosten

If she wants to change Federal, i.e. national rules, then she has to obtain the agreement of the 16 German states - each is pretty autonomous domestically with its own leader & parliament.
(The bigger states even have a foreign minister / office)

Of course, she leads a majority coalition with the SPD, so she needs their agreement too

Hence any policy tweaks require her to obtain a wide party consensus and full discussion with all the state leaders, who will be of different parties

Trust is also based on seeing that the strategy works,

e.g. death about ⅕ the level of similar countries, predicted GDP loss at the European lower end

and then there is the extension of "Kurzarbeit" for 24 months, to protect jobs until the crisis passes and hospitality, leisure etc return to pre-Covid levels
which almost all parties and unions support and which has avoided a lot of financial hardship

imo, in such a serious crisis, BJ should have aimed for genuine cross-party discussion and agreement
to get the widest public support and trust, as well as more views than just his own party

In effect a cross-party coalition on Covid only, not on any other topic

and he should have devolved responsibility and resources to the local level,
where those councils stated they were ready to take over organising testing and track & trace