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

Sorry if it’s already been discussed but I just wanted to ask a question to prepare myself; I take it mass testing programmes like the one in Liverpool are going to inflate the case figures skewing the perspective of whether cases are rising or falling for a bit?

Are the Liverpool test results included in the daily figures? Or are they just tests from laboratories? You'd hope that they'd be included but I'm not sure.

@Cornettoninja my uneducated guess is that it'll increase detected cases in the short term but by those people then isolating it should reduce detected cases eventually.

The ons survey predicts around 50,000 new cases each day even if the numbers go up they hopefully won't go above that number

Thanks @JamesAnderson. That’s what I was thinking I just needed to prepare myself for bigger numbers - I don’t think I’ve recovered from the debacle of their excel spreadsheet hiding a load of cases

I guess the good thing about the Liverpool figures is that they'll clearly show true incidence, for better or worse. Presuming that this is clearly explained alongside suddenly spiking infection rates, which presumably it will be.

Given there was no "explanation" when universities completely changed the criteria for testing and started doing mass testing of asymptomatic people, I really doubt there will be anything clearly explained. The statistics will just be misused to promote whatever agenda there is at the point of time they appear in the stats (probably more lockdown required, look at all these cases, but it might be "look how badly behaved liverpudlians are, you should blame them.)

Mass testing should not appear in the daily stats, for things to be comparable the conditions need to be the same.

I'm an ex teacher (still work I. Education and am a member of a union not neu) neu are always threatening strike action well maybe not always but often, they are very much the vocal union Nasuwt and ATL are more moderate and aren't threatening strike action just more safety measures at schools. It's worth noting that neu also were against reopening in June. The press don't seem to be reporting the views of most people in schools. The vastajority of school staff I know want to be at work but have rules that make it safer (more of an issue at secondary)

Ahem . ATL is NEU... they joined with NUT several years ago!

@clareykb

I'm an ex teacher (still work I. Education and am a member of a union not neu) neu are always threatening strike action well maybe not always but often, they are very much the vocal union Nasuwt and ATL are more moderate and aren't threatening strike action just more safety measures at schools. It's worth noting that neu also were against reopening in June. The press don't seem to be reporting the views of most people in schools. The vastajority of school staff I know want to be at work but have rules that make it safer (more of an issue at secondary)

ATL?!

I think you’re a bit out of date.

Mass testing should not appear in the daily stats, for things to be comparable the conditions need to be the same

It’s frustrating that the goal posts have been moved multiple times when counting deaths and cases making direct comparisons difficult. On reflection though I don’t see how they can’t include mass testing positives - a case is a case.

Really encouraging numbers of people getting tested in Liverpool according to the Echo, so initial concerns over choosing Liverpool as the first test seem to be dwindling.

Reading @littleowl1’s emails this morning, I was struck by how Bolton is still stuck there with high cases. They’ve had more lockdowns than anywhere else and still they remain in the worst 10. Anyone got any insight as to why?

Ideally the mass testing results would be included but identified separately to help people understand whether detected symptomatic cases are going up or down. But that's not what's happened with asymptomatic testing so far - eg by universities of students, so I'm not optimistic. They appear to be including the mass testing as "testing capacity" already so if they include the tests done then I'd assume they'll also include the new cases found from those tests. Should be easy enough to see what they're doing as we know it's just in Liverpool.

It's a notifiable disease so they have to be included.

There was a meat packing factory in Norfolk recently who found almost 200 asymptomatic cases. They were added to the total with no explanation or segregation

Differences in movement may point to the continued levels of Covid, North versus South. In London in particular, behaviours never returned to normal post first lockdown, whereas in the North, they returned to near normal, or even exceeded previous norms.

He pointed to data collected by the Financial Times in September which showed retail footfall in London still down by 69 per cent compared to places including Huddersfield, Bradford and Stoke, where it was down just 21, 12 and six per cent respectively.
In Wigan and Doncaster, footfall was actually above pre-pandemic levels by September 1

www.telegraph.co.uk/global-health/science-and-disease/london-has-kept-covid-hospital-cases-second-wave/

I'd say that those data probably reflect the fact that more people in London are able to continue to work from home?

In normal times retail footfall in London is not locals, it's visitors (including of course visitors from elsewhere in London and the UK) It's absolutely ludicrous to compare oxford street footfall and Huddersfield or Doncaster high street footfall, they are not in any way remotely comparable, Manchester itself might have been, but it's still different.

The people who normally shopped in oxford street are still shopping, they're just doing it in their local shops.

London retail is not evidence of a difference in shopping behaviour between regions. During the pandemic, this was the behaviour:
"Average daily footfall fell by 75.94% in major cities, 64.96% in regional centres, 52.87% in towns and 34.55% in district centres."
( hstfprodwebsite.blob.core.windows.netmedia/b5dnkp4z/hstf-footfall-report-2020-for-publication.pdf )

And the rebound was similar, the closer to "home", the faster the recovery, London retail is not close to home, even if it's physically closer than Manchester's (say) catchment, the fact you pass dozens of other shops before you get to Oxford street makes it much further.

ie it appears to be just another "let's blame northerners for more cases".

Other factors may include the relative youth of the capital's population, a lower incidence of obesity and other co-morbidities and perhaps a higher level of acquired immunity gained when the capital caught the brunt of the spring wave

I don't think there is any "blaming". Just looking for differences in data that may explain differences in behaviour, which may explain differences in outcomes. Surely that is what we are doing on this thread?

You really can't say that nobody in London goes to the shops, that's a very narrow view of just one small part of London whereas you're comparing stats that are for any of the 9.3m population getting infected. There is a lot of tourism in London, but at 21 million visits per year it's still dwarfed by the general population moving about for work and recreation.

Google mobility stats are available per area in London, so no need for anyone to guess. If the theory is that nobody is shopping in central London because they shop nearer to home, then you would expect suburbs to have more retail than the baseline. Retail has picked up in some areas of London but is still below normal in every area, with a huge range from -73% to -6%. What you can see very clearly and consistently is that use of public transport has stayed at 40-50% of normal levels, and 30-45% working from home.

Early?
20,562 cases, 156 deaths
344,045 tests!

I have lost track of test numbers, how does that compare with recent days?

That's the highest number of tests ever done, by some margin. Cases down a little on a week ago.

That's the highest number of tests ever done, by some margin

Seems likely that the Liverpool ones are just chucked in then.

Thank you! That’s good to know.

Great testing numbers- but they have been up at that level before with 347 and 346K in late October (29th and 23rd). Nowhere near the 500k though, even with Liverpool.