Data and Analysis Thread, started Oct 29

[PatriciaHolm]

With a link to the previous header for all the great links to data -

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4057030-Pure-data-thread-1-Daily-numbers-graphs-focused-analyses?

And with a polite plea to keep the focus on data and analysis if you please.

thanks all

[quote PatriciaHolm]Latest ONS survey report is out - main points being they think the rate of growth has slowed, with incidence stabilising at about 50k a day in England. This is the result of declines in positivity rates in younger groups but increases in older ones.

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/latest[/quote]
Also - and I thought this was fascinating

Analysis of the number of school workers, key workers and other professions in England who had COVID-19

We have produced additional ad-hoc analysis, which we have included in this week’s bulletin. For other ad-hoc analysis please see our monthly article. Data from 2 September (the start of the school year) to 16 October 2020 show no evidence of differences in the positivity rate between primary and secondary school teachers, other key workers and other professions.

The “other key workers” category includes the following occupations:

resident-facing care home workers

patient-facing and non-patient facing healthcare workers

protective service occupations

A similar trend in positivity rates can be seen when including the household members of teachers and other key workers. Since the start of the school year there has been no evidence of difference in the positivity rate between primary and secondary school teachers and their households, other key workers and their households, and other professions and their households.

So why not?

I would like to see the same analysis on schooled children vs no children in education.

I was just reading a piece in the Guardian about the government getting criticised for using overly negative projections. Apparently, they have downgraded projections to this. But aren't we overshooting the worst case scenario on this new projection already?

Hmm.. I find that frustrating. there is a big difference between 'other keyworkers' where there is no difference and other professions where there is no difference.

That doesn't make sense : it seems paradoxical. we all know that the rates are highest amongst careworkers and nursing staff - so if teachers are the same as them, then that is alarming. If we are the same as other professions, what are those? And that is not alarming. Hope that makes sense. it can't be both.

Also, it's positivity rates they are measuring, not infections : strange measure?

I know it's not evidence and is sheer anecdata but teachers are terrible for presenteeism. I do know lots of teachers who have avoided tests. (Not good, I know)

I don't understand what they are saying really.

So why not?
Many hundreds of small reasons combining?
10% of people cause 90% of infections. Someone who speaks loudly and meets lots of people indoors, particularly without sufficient ventilation, no masks etc. Some people are infected by superspreaders due to parties, then share with their household and a few friends, some asymptomaticd help it along for bad luck.
Teachers speak more than they listen.
Healthcare staff have some PPE protection.
Mandatory masks on buses protect drivers more.
Screens for supermarket workers.
Have the factory workers been counted in this? Looks like no to me.

It's worth noticing that this is discussing positivity rate, not the amount of cases.

I'm a teacher. I stand in front of a room and talk at them all day. If I get a cough, I'm getting a test, because I know how many people I will infect and what impact it will have.

I would imagine the same is true of health care workers. Also, home care workers are getting tested regularly, symptoms or not. All of these groups probably know that they have a duty to those around them to not go in to work if they have the slightest chance of being positive.

On the other hand, you have people who are on minimum wage (which would include the poor bloody care workers, but they're getting tested anyway) who can't afford 2 weeks without wages, who are probably not going to get tested unless they are feeling pretty rough.

So I think it's worth considering that some groups of people are probably more likely to get a test (thus lowering the positivity rate).

@Piggywaspushed. If you look at the graph, “other professions” seem to have a higher positivity rate than “other key workers” which seems really odd!

And what are teachers of unknown type?!

I really don't know... ones who didn't specify on the form??

That's' what I mean about it not making sense hmmph... to me other professions are lawyers, accountants etc who are regarded as very safe.

It literally makes no sense and I think that is because it is positivity rates not number of infections.

Monday 2nd still looking high but the 3rd/4th looking likely to be lower so hopefully that was a post half term bounce which will balance out as the week goes on. Still looking pretty flat overall. Graph from RP131 on Twitter.

@MRex that was why it surprised me that the positivity rate wasn't higher amongst teachers.
It made me wonder... communications being what I do for a living....why that ad-hoc analysis was done right now, and why it was presented in such an opaque manner.
It feels almost defensive?

Yes, and why just teachers vs other professions. Why not taxi drivers or dentists? It seemed a very targeted but randomly done analysis to show that “teaching is safe”.

When things this specific suddenly pop up it makes me wonder why and therefore be suspicious of the data being presented and manipulated for a reason.

Teaching might well be safe, or more likely not as danger as we fear, but this ad hoc analysis doesn’t convince me.

Or that there's another bit of data about to emerge which isn't so rosy and they can't keep back?

If the rate's the same as the key workers described, it does beg the question of why masks were only really brought in to schools now. It definitely makes you suspicious!

This is an article about it:

www.tes.com/news/revealed-rate-positive-covid-tests-among-teachers

Here, the way of looking at it is to point out secondary school teachers appear to have the same risk as healthcare workers...

@Nellodee

I was just reading a piece in the Guardian about the government getting criticised for using overly negative projections. Apparently, they have downgraded projections to this. But aren't we overshooting the worst case scenario on this new projection already?

I think that's England, and so no not quite - we are at a 7 day average of 238 by specimen day as of 3rd Oct, up from 200 on the 29th, which looks pretty much bang on on that (not surprising as hopefully this was done based on the most up to date numbers!)

Here's The Guardian with a different take!

www.theguardian.com/education/2020/nov/06/teachers-no-more-likely-than-other-key-workers-to-get-covid-says-ons

I find it interesting that it is seen as good that teachers have the same rate as careworkers and keyworkers. This doesn't reassure me.

Key workers includes supermarket staff, telephone repair men, anyone who carried on working outside the home the first time round, which teachers also did to some extent

It's who the other professions are that is the mystery!

@midgebabe

Key workers includes supermarket staff, telephone repair men, anyone who carried on working outside the home the first time round, which teachers also did to some extent

No, this ad hoc survey only used the following categories of key workers in their comparison:

The “other key workers” category includes the following occupations:
• resident-facing care home workers
• patient-facing and non-patient facing healthcare workers
• protective service occupations

Issues about presenteeism, etc, and people avoiding tests wouldn't be relevant in terms of this ONS study as it's based on the survey, not on the "only if you have symptoms" population testing. So it's not looking at actual numbers of infections, only positivity in a sample of the population over time.

So it should be representative in that sense; however, the numbers of each type of person in the survey is unlikely to be representative of the numbers of those types of workers in the population, so its not representative in that sense.

Looking at the confidence intervals, all it really says it that in this data, there is no significant difference in the infection rates between any occupations.

Yes, it basically says all working people are the same. More or less...

It is a bit odd.

The guardian article seemed to indicate other professions is those working out of the home more than one day a week.

Re the legal profession as one example a lot of lawyers will now be working out of the home at least one week. Anyone involved in the court or tribunal system for example.

I’m not sure it is that surprising that this has been done re teachers and now - we’ve now had a half term of ‘full’ opening plus the teacher unions have been vocal ( well more than a taxi drivers union say) with concerns about the measures for schools.

I wonder what the differences are between someone who consents to be part of the ONS survey, vs. those who are invited but decline to take part. I'm thinking about things like ability to afford to self isolate for example and whether that means differences in the kind of employment people have even with the same job title.

I don't think the timing is odd : I just don't get their point!

Oh I think it's very pointed! Be interesting to see what the teaching unions make of it.

Today's COVID-19 figures for France:
• 60,486 new confirmed cases (+13% week on week)
• 3,140 new hospitalizations (+16%)
• 398 new hospital deaths (+59%)