Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 22

[BigChocFrenzy]

Welcome to thread 22 of the daily updates

Resource links:

Uk dashboard deaths, cases, hospitals, tests - 4 nations, English regions & LAs
R estimates UK & English regions
Imperial UK weekly LAs, cases / 100k, table, map, hotspots
School statistics Attendance
Modelling real number of UK infections February to date
NHS England Hospital activity
NHs England Daily deaths
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
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 analytical contributions
Please try to keep discussion focused on these
📈 📉 📊 👍

I'll try to listen to Semple later. not a R4 person

I have done a lot of research into teen suicides. Not relevant to this thread but it is rare before SLA and when it does occur is most often in young males who are NEET. It is quite a niche issue to trot out (not accusing anyone but seen it on other threads) to perhaps catastrophises about schools closures as if it will lead to mass suicide cults.

I believe, but haven't got time to look at the mo, that it isn't true that suicide rates have gone up .

I try not to be emotive : so I hope this doesn't sound it!

The scientists I was particularly referring to as saying that older children SD are Jenny harries, who repeatedly says this in pressers, and Munro. Van Tam acceded that young children didn't, thereby implying an effort should be made with older ones.

I do think that message should be reinforced to secondary schools, but I think there is a fatalistic attitude : which may be fine in the end, I guess. (Depending on how you define fine... on one thread yesterday 'fine' was defined as 1000 deaths a day and Nightingales in use!))

Happy to change subject : it stresses me out!

@TheSunIsStillShining

Would anyone more numbers oriented care to look at this? Multiple models overlayed on US CDC seasonal flu deaths to try to speculate(?) IFR.

twitter.com/laoneill111/status/1313542640391139329/photo/1

Interesting, but I don't have time to look into it more.

.... That is an excellent chart - log scale - summarising IFR vs flu AND what is important, with several different studies for each

I have downloaded it for future use on MN !

It summarises what we have seen from death statistics in Western countries:

the risk to children is higher for flu
and for under 30s of Covid is tiny and not much higher than flu,
but the Covid risks soon increase and overtake flu,
==> Covid is clearly much more dangerous from age 50
and this difference increases further with age

From studies I have seen, the overall population - average over all ages - IFR for flu is about 0.044% and Covid currently has probably fallen from ~0.6% to about 0.4% in most Western countries

btw, The reason some people think flu and Covid IFR are comparable for even the middle-aged is often because of comparing estimated flu cases with confirmed Covid cases.
i.e. not a valid comparison

(the reason denialists think this is because no evidence would convince them otherwise, because their denialist opinion is not based on any evidence)

Again, reliable data & evidence are needed, rather than opinions and feelings

There is no evidence to date of higher suicides among children,
so I wouldn't use that as a reason against SD / lockdowns until / unless there is some evidence

As posted before, ONS stats for Q1+Q2, which covers the full lockdown period is that suicides were actually significantly reduced
That is obviously not a reason to have lockdown though !

Also that teachers aren't dying at a higher rate than the average adult of working age

I am not suggesting this has changed but when was the last time occupational stats were released?

Yes, yet another area where there is not enough data. You'd hope they would monitor this since schools are the only workplace not implementing masks, social distancing or both. And ideally not just deaths but long covid.

When I me toned teenaged suicides I was answering a question on what Prof Semple said.

It’s not particularly my view and I haven’t looked at data.

Mentioned

Data can save lives, data can cost lives - and this latest testing blunder will likely prove it

True, alas
In public health, reliable data is key
A country can't effectively fight a very persistent virus without it

news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-data-can-save-lives-data-can-cost-lives-and-this-latest-testing-blunder-will-likely-prove-it-12090904

"Numbers are what undergird this process.
Data on who has the disease, data on their contacts:
if we lose control of that data then we have effectively lost control of the coronavirus all over again."

Can I just clarify a point on the school question-

Are there any studies taking place in the UK currently monitoring school children? ie regular tests of every child in a class in several primary and secondary schools across the country? Or are no studies taking place?

@BigChocFrenzy

re your account of Prof Semple's views

This doesn't take into account the extremely clinically vulnerable AT ALL.

It would do not harm and possibly do some good (increased social distancing) to allow ECV families to take their children out of school. Temporarily.

It is baffling that the government is not supporting this.

Prof Semple himself admits that teen children in secondary school are pretty much on a par with adults in terms of passing on infections.

If it is about management of risk then the government need to look at who is at risk and how the risks can intelligently be managed in the community.

Also, why do we have to wait for significant deaths of teachers to put reasonable measures in place in schools?

Mind you I am coming at this from a medical reason-from-first-principles approach.

If
-we know that secondary school students can be infected and transmit and

• we need SD and ventilation etc to avoid this

then we need to either

• make secondary schools secure

or

• look at blended learning / homeschooling / extra building utilised options so there is more space

or

• get anyone vulnerable the hell out of that chain of infection.

Just to merrily continue on and do nothing while figures rise is not a logical course of action. (Logic rather than figures, sorry)

@BigChocFrenzy

Data can save lives, data can cost lives - and this latest testing blunder will likely prove it

True, alas
In public health, reliable data is key
A country can't effectively fight a very persistent virus without it

news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-data-can-save-lives-data-can-cost-lives-and-this-latest-testing-blunder-will-likely-prove-it-12090904

"Numbers are what undergird this process.
Data on who has the disease, data on their contacts:
if we lose control of that data then we have effectively lost control of the coronavirus all over again."

And Prof Semple, for example, wants to stop all testing on primary schools. Now, the children there may possibly be 1/2 as likely to pass on the virus as an adult - possibly (in what circumstances?)

But they really are liable to get cuddled etc when they are ill.

And without any testing at primary school we could have almost an entire school infected, and become aware of this very late on.

With significant implications for ECV children, teachers, parents and of course pregnant mums.

Lunacy.

@IloveJKRowling

I agree we shouldn't test everyone - we should take a few schools in the NW perhaps and test the close contacts of positive cases to see what proportion of asymptomatic positive children there are. Then test their close contacts in the home and see if they spread it to their family.

Then, if it shows what everyone wants it to show, it would be massively reassuring to all the parents in the UK. Including those who are most vulnerable.

I remember reading criticism of Sweden for them not having taken the research opportunity, in the first wave when their primary schools were open, to proactively test pupils in sample schools to investigate transmission. It seems to me that we're now doing the same thing. Surely we can only benefit from more information about what happens in real settings?

Even if we can look at the stats and say that at a population level we're sure the risks are low enough to justify the overall open v. closed decision, there are still a lot of open questions. Schools have to decide where to put ECV staff; families have to make individual decisions that can reasonably have different risk thresholds to the national decision; classroom mitigation measures and isolation policies that hugely affect teaching and learning have to be decided on. More detailed data could help inform all of these decisions, even if the overall open v. closed decision has been made.

It is very tempting to look at the lack of data and intelligent planning in education and wonder whether there is malign intent.

Although, other aspects of this government's performance do tend to confirm me in the opinion that the lack of scientific rigor in their approach is down to sheer incompetence.

I don't know whether to be reassured by that thought.

here I would support children being out of school and not lose their place.

But, what happens when they return? And they are not at the same level as classmates? How does that impact other students?

Would it be possible to have ECV teachers, teaching children at home at a local / regional / national level?

Would there be enough staff remaining in schools?

BUT on the other hand we are not a vulnerable family. So whilst I understand your concerns, I don't share them.

I, of course, do not want others to be at risk, but I'm not in the North. Its not as bad here, so I don't want decisions to be made here, because of how things are in the North.

My kids are in their 6th week at school. They are learning lots and we have had no disruption so far.

I am not naive enough to believe that we won't be impacted at some point. Possibly when the NW is past the peak and things are rosier there.

@TheSunIsStillShining

If atm schools seem to replicate the community transmission rate wouldn't it be a sensible approach to assume that as community cases go up school cases go up somewhat proportionally. For me this begs 2 questions:

1. wouldn't it make sense to replicate community measures?
2. Wouldn't it be logical to set a threshold where schools need to move to partial/full online learning? Same logic as with threshold per area=lockdowns, more stringent measures

I personally would feel that if these 2 pieces were discussed, implemented we would be in a better place already. Of course TTR -in general- would be needed.

I totally agree with this. There does just seem to be the "schools open at all costs" message. If blended learning was activated at certain rates of transmission I would feel much happier I think there are a couple of separate issues with schools too. The first is that schools are reflecting community rates but teachers are not able to undertake the social distancing and other measures they would in other settings. This a) makes them more vulnerable (especially with 15+ ages) b)some schools/headteachers are universally declaring teachers " not a close contact" to infected students because they have maintained a 2m distance as much as possible even when this is actually not the case and the 2m distance is impossible to maintain. I think this is because heads are under pressure to 'keep schools open at all costs'. There comes a point, when different groups of children are in and out of school, isolating and ill so frequently that the already tough task of teaching and ensuring some level of progress becomes pretty impossible. It would be more sensible to go to a planned blended pattern before this stage is reached as both students mental health and learning progress would be improved. I think we are at this point in secondaries/ sixth form colleges in Greater Manchester. I don't think we can go on school staff death rates not being high because schools were shut through most of the first peak and 8 don't think we have seen the effect on deaths from this second wave yet. It is too early

@Hmmph

Can I just clarify a point on the school question-

Are there any studies taking place in the UK currently monitoring school children? ie regular tests of every child in a class in several primary and secondary schools across the country? Or are no studies taking place?

I think Bristol University is doing regular saliva testing in at least 1 secondary school. No data/conclusions published yet as far as I know

We are very lucky and not in the North. But numbers are rising, of course.

The problem with the current situation, numberswise, is that the current numbers will change dramatically very quickly, because of the potential for exponential growth. We know this. However, it is in some ways convenient not to factor this in to planning.

(Making schooling more covid secure would require effort, intelligent planning, expense and the will to make things better for children in state schools, all of which appear to be deficient below what is needed.)

I am a bit stunned by how bloody useless Prof Semple was too be honest. I can't believe they are considering taking testing out of primary schools.

@IloveJKRowling

Also that teachers aren't dying at a higher rate than the average adult of working age

I am not suggesting this has changed but when was the last time occupational stats were released?

Yes, yet another area where there is not enough data. You'd hope they would monitor this since schools are the only workplace not implementing masks, social distancing or both. And ideally not just deaths but long covid.

.... The ONS report released last month only goes to 30 June, which is obviously not recent enough to say anything about staff in ft schools Unfortunately, there is probably a longer lag to collate deaths by occupation than for their other types of reports

However, if teaching unions are at all competent, they would be able to highlight teacher deaths
Any union member in a school should know if a staff member became very ill and / or then died of Covid

re Long Covid:
By its very nature, to qualify as Long Covid takes ~3 months
So the relative number of deaths is probably in practice all that the UK can obtain without a much longer time lag

It is very frustrating that there have been so few studies of any kind in Sweden, in particular vs their very similar Scandi neighbours that did lock down and close schools

However, no country likes to do studies that they know will make them look worse than their neighbours,
even when they can counter this with the benefits they prioritised, such as greater personal freedom, less power to the state etc

here I have always supported ECV staff and students being allowed to stay home (as in Germany, 3% of staff, lower for students)

That is far preferable to measures that significantly affect the education of the other 97%

Blended learning has major disadvantages for most children - and parents too

A lot of MNers with kids at school completely switch off and even turn to the Covid denialists when this keeps being mentioned

It is anathema to most parents, at least at this stage with so few deaths

Far better strategy is to campaign for ECV staff and children - and with ECV household members - to be allowed to stay home without penalty
They are the ones for whom the risk of significant harm is no longer miniscule

Not testing primary age was put towards a solution to the secondary issue.

Other countries don’t test primary age children anymore. Does anyone know which ones? France and The Netherlands?

I saw Denmark has managed to get R to 0.8 and keep schools open - does anyone know what strategies they use?

Thank you. Is this the study? www.bristol.ac.uk/news/2020/september/commins-study.html

Am I right in thinking they not reporting anything until July 2021?

With some money/clear thinking, it would be possible to support a really good blended learning system that would maintain a good level of learning.

If I were secretary of state for Education (and had some money), this is how I would do it.
Start off with year 9 and above going to blended learning. Educationally, I think this would be best on a week on, week off basis but I could be persuaded on a 2 week pattern if it had significant benefit from a Covid control point of view
I would fund local authorities to convert libraries and other spaces like conference suites and even church halls into learning centres staffed by TAs and youth workers.
Most students would be able to engage in work from home and would be old enough to be left if parents need to go out to work. I'm not envisaging live broadcast lessons for the 'out' students but a mixture of guided study via links to things like Oak Academy/ BBC bitesize, Corbett maths and other packages that schools have already bought into plus work to be completed.
Learning centres would be there for vulnerable students and those who for some reason or other could not work at home
Just as students are required to attend school, they would be required to prove engagement in the out of school learning. If they did not do this they would lose the option of working from home and would need to attend a learning centre.
I would put this in place now for all schools where transmission rates are higher than a certain level and have it in place until at least Easter.
I think that this would be way better than the "in, out, shake it all about" going on right now.
It would cost money of course but less than has already been wasted on inadequate PPE and a failing track and trace!

And Prof Semple, for example, wants to stop all testing on primary schools. Now, the children there may possibly be 1/2 as likely to pass on the virus as an adult - possibly (in what circumstances?). But they really are liable to get cuddled etc when they are ill. And without any testing at primary school we could have almost an entire school infected, and become aware of this very late on. With significant implications for ECV children, teachers, parents and of course pregnant mums. Lunacy.

Agreed, my 3 year old's preferred sleep position is on top of me (she has reflux so though her bed is raised she finds it easier not to roll down if I'm there)

Primary aged children may be less likely to transmit but the amount of time caregivers will be in close contact will be I'd guess 5-6x that for older kids (that's about the ratio for me with DD2 compared to DD1 who sleeps though the night thank God). I doubt Prof Semple has had to go into a small child's bedroom 4 or 5 times a night for at least an hour each time. Or all the things good parents do on a regular basis when their kids feel under the weather.

The utter lack of recognition of the reality of caring for small children is breathtaking. And depressing.

Also, in upper primary, lots of yr 5 and yr6 children now are going through puberty and have increasingly adult bodies. 8 is no longer considered to be precocious puberty. So I think the idea they don't have adult bodies and therefore won't behave like mini adults holds up especially well there either. In my daughter's school there are 4 children in year 6 who are taller than the shorter Mums at pickup. www.nhs.uk/conditions/early-or-delayed-puberty/

[quote MRex]@alreadytaken - it's a risk; there has not been time for this to occur plus genome testing yet. I agree the mutation is not a very high probability, but the potential impact on students of getting two simultaneous strains is sadly much higher probability. The risk of two viral strains in one flat of 8 is nothing like the risk of 5 viral strains in a party of 140.[/quote]
No evidence of this happening in the outbreaks in other settings.

Highly unlikely, perhaps we need to stick to data or evidence based theories for this.