Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread 25

[BigChocFrenzy]

Welcome to thread 25 of the daily updates

Resource links

UK:
Uk dashboard R, deaths, cases, hospitals, tests - by postcode, 4 nations, English regions, LAs
Interactive 7-day rolling cases map click on map or by postcode
UK govt pressers Slides & data
SAGE Table Interventions with impacts and R
Imperial UK weekly tables & extrapolations LAs, cases / 100k, table, map, hotspots
School statistics Attendance - Tuesdays
ICNRC Intensive Care National Audit & Research reports
UK testing and NHS England track & trace - Thursdays
ONS Roundup deaths, infections & economic reports
ONS England, Wales & NI Infection surveillance report - Fridays
ONS Datasets for surveillance reports
Our World in Data UK test positivity
R estimates & daily growth UK & English regions - Fridays
Modelling real number of UK infections February in first wave

England:
NHS England Hospital activity
NHS England Daily deaths
PHE COVID Clinical Risk Factors Non-respiratory by region, area, district etc
MSAO Map of English cases
Cases Tracker England Local Government
PHE surveillance reports Covid, flu, respiratory diseases - Thursdays
CovidMessenger live update by council district in England

Scotland, Wales, NI:
Scot gov Daily data
Scotland TravellingTabby LAs, care homes, hospitals, tests, t&t
PH Wales LAs, tests, ONS deaths
NI Dashboard

Miscell:
Zoe Uk data
ECDC rolling 14-day incidence EEA & UK
Worldometer UK page
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
📈 📉 📊 👍
--
Links added to OP:

• SAGE Table of Interventions with impacts and R
• PHE COVID Clinical Risk Factors by region, area

Links changed

• PHE Covid surveillance is now Covid & flu

Monkey many teachers are not and also want windows closed.

@Hmmph

Completely agree regarding the age bands.

It should be 0-4, 5-10, 10-16, 17-18 to fit in with schools. OR it should be groups of 10 years for all ages.

Otherwise it looks like data manipulation

But you also need the age bands, unless it's per 100k of population, to be consistent width.

I've certainly seen where they've been 0-4, 5-9, 10-19, 20-29 etc and with the comment that 0-4 and 5-9 are half any other age group-which you would specifically expect that to be as the age range is half the others, but that isn't commented upon.

I'd like to see data on school years, 2 years at a time, and done from May onwards. Even better one year at a time!
Does the incidence go up consistently?
Is there an increase in the years that went back in May?
Did teenagers increase much in July/August when they started going out again with friends (round here they did anyway)?
Is there a big jump between primary and secondary, which might show that primaries are much more able to keep in bubbles etc?

I'd also like to see comparative figures between those who travel on school transport to get to school and those who walk/come by private transport.

I suspect in about 30 years time then these things will start leaking out, but in order for people to make decisions they should be looking at them now.
I'll happily do it for them if they'll give me the raw data, if they pay me £7k a day. I'll even do it on excel if they like.

@TheMShip

If we're trying to get at primary Vs secondary Vs university, we don't need to mess around with age bands, the data is already there. As pointed out above, you have to enter your school or workplace into the test system, and PHE is reporting clusters/outbreaks by educational setting type.

Does it break it down into number of cases per setting though because that is what is needed not outbreak or clusters (which I believe is 2 cases) to get a true picture of how the different settings are affected. There are far less universities than primary schools across the country so the data might show more outbreaks in primaries but these might only be a handful of cases per setting whilst at the universities it's 100s. We need case data not outbreak/clusters

A min of 2 cases for an outbreak I should say

Schools are an interesting point really. I know that I’m concerned. But they have a duty of care to staff and the children. We have to send children to school, and yet are sending them into an environment that on the whole is not taking any safe precautions against Covid19 transmission that is evidence based. Ventilation, masks, low numbers. In a way I’m surprised this isn’t a legal or human rights issue yet. I’m sending my child into an environment that I don’t feel is covid safe.

Little no, we are only being told the number of clusters) outbreaks by setting, my point was that PHE has the data on cases per setting and isn't publishing it. That worries me.

In the grand scheme of things, 1.5mm is a drop in the ocean of total COVID spending. The estimated budget has now gone up to 210bln with furlough costs being the most significant item (47bln earmarked in total and 35.6bln spent by the end of August). I don't think that is how good financial management works. So 1.5 m here, 2m there, the waste becomes billions and it isn't just that we pay that money it is what else could that money have done? We can't afford to feed children who are hungry in school holidays, how many would that 1.5 for one person actually feed.

It might not bother you that your unborn GC or GGC will be paying this back in 100 years but not everyone feels the same.

@Hmmph - Covid infection risks escalate slightly from age 14, and massively from age 16. When the numbers are presented as 10-19/ 20-29, we see many posts that schools have a severe problem of rampant infections and the young adults "must" all be teachers being infected by children. When the numbers are separated to show it's 16-24 with the major issue, it isn't acknowledged that this means people working with age 16+ need a LOT more precautions in any environment (school, FE college, uni etc), but relax the panic on primary and the younger secondary age groups - no, it's referred to as "manipulation". Despite the much higher numbers being for the smaller age bands!!!! It is correct for there to be focus on who is responsible for most infections right now, however inconvenient it might be.

@MRex I’d question your assumption that the risk ramps up from age 16. We just don’t have strong enough evidence yet. Especially as younger children are asymptomatic and not tested as much, we just don’t know and some more recent studies point to young children transmitting as much as adults.

@TheMShip - The total cases aren't presented because they are grouped to show problem areas, and age is a bigger driver than educational setting. Rather than dark comments suggesting something is hidden, just look at the figures that have been presented. The graphs are there, you can see for yourself it is age 16+ where the issue becomes severe, it is not the younger ages.

We have been around this loop many times @IceCreamSummer20, you really have to stop this. Time after time you have been shown that in children the number of cases is lower, positivity is lower, randomised ONS testing shows cases are lower. Use data to inform your viewpoint, or go to a chat thread, but stop disrupting discussion about data with conspiracy theories.

@BigChocFrenzy

Noone should ever have claimed schools are "Covid-secure" because there is no such thing in any WOH job with other people around

It should have been acknowledged that teachers, like some other workers, have an increased risk at work than if they stayed home
Good employers reduce that risk at work as much as possible, but it will never be zero

Teachers in the UK are at higher risk than need be, because of govt decisions not to invest, not to mandate masks for students

We should be grateful for their public service, along with that of all the others continuing to WoH

Completely agree with all of that.

You have but you are still not correct in asserting confidentially that over 16s magically transmit more than younger children - there just isn’t the evidence to support it. It’s not my viewpoint, it’s the evidence base. This thread surely is the one place that upholds the data and the evidence.

And really do not accuse me of conspiracy theories! And tell me to get off to another chat! That is deeply offensive and not in the spirit of this thread at all. I am a scientist in this area, and I have read the ECDC briefings on schools, the CDC, the up to date evidence, as well as the data.

You have not in these threads shown strong evidence to back up this claim, which it is, and no one in the scientific community asserts that ‘risk of transmission rises steeply at age 16’.

@MRex

We have been around this loop many times *@IceCreamSummer20*, you really have to stop this. Time after time you have been shown that in children the number of cases is lower, positivity is lower, randomised ONS testing shows cases are lower. Use data to inform your viewpoint, or go to a chat thread, but stop disrupting discussion about data with conspiracy theories.

Also no we have not been around the loop with this with me! I rarely comment on these threads and when I do it is always with a evidence based view. I haven’t the time to go around and around with anyone?

You have personally offended me twice for no reason at all. It really is time that you stopped as it puts me off an otherwise very well managed and thoughtful thread.

To clarify my earlier post (was writing in a hurry whilst half asleep)

I think we need data on both educational bands and consistent age groupings.

The data needs to be something that can be compared. So it’s no good only having case numbers or clusters for 11-16 vs 17-18 as there are more in the first group than second. We need data giving the percentage of infections in each of these groups so that different educational settings can be compared. So for example 5% in Primary, 8% in Secondary, 15% in College.

We also, throughout all the ages, need consistent age bands. 0-10, 10-20, 20-30 etc. so that different ages can be compared, again with percentages as there aren’t the same numbers of people in each age group. 15-64 as and age band is massive and can’t be compared to other smaller age bands.

Two sets of data for two different purposes. So you can compare either educational setting or age bands depending on the data set you use. At the moment we have neither.

If you are using inconsistent data- so pure case numbers in different sized bands or clusters in schools vs university - you are never going to be able to compare. Information can be missed, or if someone was so inclined, manipulated by not comparing like for like.

@Hmmph if they posted data on smaller age bands, 1 year, or 2 years or whatever then that could be used both to aggregate bigger sets such as 0 - 10 and 5 - 10 years or whatever was useful. However they would also need to be seen in context - data can’t be seen in isolation. That context would include factors such as ratio tested, differences in asymptomatic vs symptomatic compared to other age groups etc

I don't think that is how good financial management works. So 1.5 m here, 2m there, the waste becomes billions and it isn't just that we pay that money it is what else could that money have done?

Actually, I would say good financial management starts with understanding the big picture and the scale of the numbers.

Single digit millions taken together will add up to tens and low hundreds of million but not to tens of billions.

It does not mean we should not focus on waste - we absolutely should - but saying "let us just stop paying Serco and other consultants and use the money to increase furlough packages - there is funding available" is quite naive (I know it was a different poster who said that - I am just using the example to illustrate the point). The two categories of spending are completely incomparable. It reminds me of DailyMail readers who think we can resolve all the NHS problems if we stop "health tourism" or cut foreign aid.

Risk of death from Covid doubles for every 7 years older you are. You don’t suddenly risk dying when you’re 80 and are ok before that, there is a steady line which follows with the normal risk of dying from anything line. www.bmj.com/content/370/bmj.m3259 (this is from 9 Sept, it’s not new but I am using it as an illustration).

Along the same lines, are there any studies which which show:
a) the risk of catching coronavirus at each age
b) the risk of getting symptoms at each age
c) the transmission risk at each age

It would be very interesting to compare these things. Are there equal risks of any/all of these across ages or do they follow this doubling every 7 years increase or is there a step up of risk at any age.

@Hmmph it is slightly complicated in that there are 7 years from year R to year 6 and 7 years from year 7 -13.

However, if there were 2 year groupings, even thought there would be overlap between primary and secondary, presumably the figures could be added up to give 10 year age bands? and also would give a better idea of split between primary and secondary and also lower secondary and 6th form?

I am quite concerned at frequent reports from teachers here and on social media that it is difficult to feed in information centrally on the new phone line about positive tests in schools. Also, there seems little interest from the D of E (via the new phone line) to investigate and link cases that might form a cluster.This would significantly impact both on the quality of data we have about what is going on and also directly on spread.

I think there should be information collected centrally about numbers of infections and closures/ pupils sent home in schools, to inform and reassure parents and pupils. It is very worrying that this information is lacking, however you interpret the failure to gather it.

Wish we could "like" posts. @Hmmph said it better than I could!

@MRex I want to see more data published broken down by educational setting. What's so "dark" about that? I'm a scientist and I get concerned when there's data that is clearly being collected, could be useful, but isn't being shown, and ask why that might be. Often it's simply an omission because the people closest to the data know it so well they have unconscious assumptions about it, and can't see it the same way as outside eyes. It's rarely active concealment, but there's been a breakdown of trust between government and its agencies with the public and that colours my perception of the situation.

@Hmmph - the charts that are per 100,000 give the consistency you were looking for. I agree it would be much nicer to have it readily accessible in tables with 1) number of outbreaks + total cases + mean cases per outbreak + median cases per outbreak - all per region; 2) number of cases and positivity per 5 year age band + number assigned to each type of institution by age band (including staff, also same for care homes and workplaces) + per 100,000 + per region; 3) educational attendance figures split by illness and isolation, as well as being educated in school / at home / partially school and home / not at all. I sent in the request to the surveillance reports team for the initial ones, didn't bother for attendance yet, would be great if others could do the same with their own requests. (I got an answer from the dashboard team ages ago to a request when the change was implemented, so I have unreasonable expectations that good ideas might be listened to.)

@IceCreamSummer20 - you have not presented any facts, you have not presented any data, you have not presented any research. You have again made statements with nothing backing them up to refute links to actual data that others have presented so that you can try to derail discussion. When you were given evidence of hundreds of thousands of child tests you claimed with no evidence that perhaps tests weren't working on children. You claimed 10-19 stats meant infections in younger age groups and ignore the 16+ actual cases when that evidence is presented. You even suggested on the data thread that perhaps people shouldn't post the daily figures. I don't care if you find it offensive when it's pointed out, I consider it reasonable to ask you to post data to back up your conspiracy theories or stop disrupting the thread.

Long time lurker on this thread and try to keep up every day. I find a solace having reading informed discussion on data. I however find the school bickering really annoying. Especially posters who want to stifle discussion about children (this is the point of Mumsnet - maybe you should go elsewhere if you don't like it) and those who add information about individual circumstance that is not linked to a current discussion on data.

Rant over and back to data. I also think the ONS age bands are unhelpful as the 10-19 spans Primary, Secondary, 6th form and Further Ed settings. This is very relevant as I presume this document is used by the government in their strategic planning.

I work in a Year 6 class (ages 10-11) and can not find all the data that I would like about the risk to this age group. Yes MRex I am aware that there is some data on this in other places. ONS data may not be manipulated but it is certainly not presented in a way that is helpful to schools.

EducatingArti
I think your view is a bit simplistic.
It may also be due to:
Higher proportion in poor standard high density housing
Higher proportion in public facing key worker roles
Lower overall health levels ( maybe including levels of vit D?)
etc

Yes, that may all be true. So how about Elmbridge? It's not making news, but also Tier 3, and in the most expensive, high earning, low density, high sunshine, highest life expectancy in the country. No universities either. Same issue as Richmond? No idea.

I'm struggling with what is going on there.

@Hmmmm - there are a lot of research reports, I think this one is a good summary of figures comparison across the questions you are asking, but there are many more if you feel it leaves open questions: www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0962-9.

There are also middle and first schools as well as junior and infant schools to make it even more complicated setting wise.

I might ask how my friend's middle school are doing the masks thing. Rates are about 600+ per 100,000 round here.