Data and analysis thread, started 12 November

[NoGoodPunsLeft]

Previous thread here:

Data and Analysis Thread, started Oct 29 www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4064113-Data-and-Analysis-Thread-started-Oct-29

Regular lurker but I frequent poster, didn't want to lose the threads.

there's no evidence from this survey that teachers overall are at higher risk does in fact remain.

This isn’t a strong conclusion though. We can see from the data that was split into primary and secondary, secondary were at a higher risk than primary. If you take the teacher of unknown type which was at a higher risk and add it to primary, of course you are going to lower the overall risk. It is a common tactic of the government to combine primary and secondary together (e.g. attendance stats) to make things look better than they actually are, when there’s a real problem in secondary.

The concern is why ‘unknown teacher’ was at a higher risk. Were they more likely to be secondary? Is it hiding anything? If they had been split into primary and secondary and added to the correct groups, what would the figures have looked like then?

Primary teachers have fewer contacts. Primary school kids have a much lower infection rate than secondary kids.
The only conclusion that can be drawn is that we need some properly collected data.

@nobelgiraffe The problem is that we can't really see that any type of teacher is more or less likely to catch Covid because the numbers in the survey were too small. A total of 7 secondary teachers were reported positive (out of 1852) That's a tiny number (and actually a slightly lower rate than other working people). The large majority of teachers are of unknown type I'd guess they would be roughly 50-50, as the numbers who've specified primary or secondary are quite similar and I'm guessing there are similar numbers of primary and secondary teachers overall (secondary includes sixth forms so covers Y7-13)

The ONS study is probably the best there is to get this type of data, but yes definitely needs frequent updating.

Well I can give you the data for my son's nursery. After an initial group of 3 staff (unknown number of children) we now have 4 more staff, one child confirmed with symptoms so far.

Seems to outstrip the ons data in one place.

With some historical digging I could find the number of teachers and pupils infected in a local Sen school that had to close at the end of sept. It was quite a lot.

we have just received notification from dc's schools that they discourage national or international travel for christmas.
secondary has a mandatory assessment test scheduled the week after the holidays.

not in the uk, school is mandatory and strictly enforced.

I'd guess they would be roughly 50-50

But is that a reasonable assumption given that they were at overall higher risk than the other two groups? If we look at the different risk assigned to the other two groups (and we would expect higher for secondary from other data), this isn’t necessarily valid.

It’s a mess, basically.

They weren't at higher risk @noblegiraffe. The numbers are too small to be statistically significant. The "higher risk" you're seeing in the group of "unknown type" of teachers is just down to chance. Why else would it be (marginally) higher than both primary and secondary teachers? We need better data yes. But it's no use grasping at straws in the data we have to pretend it says anything other than "the data does not as of 16 October show any significant differences between teachers and other working people"

Are the types of people who volunteer for trials really good at social distancing? Did their efforts to target high risk occupations mean they accidentally recruited large numbers who's already had Covid (maybe with t cell immunity rather than antibiotics, which I assume they checked for, but maybe not?) I don't know the answers but would like to see someone asking these questions

Yes, me too! It is something I've wondered about.

Why else would it be (marginally) higher than both primary and secondary teachers?

Well that’s a good question as it is larger than both groups combined but you are saying that it is higher by chance than they are lower by chance.

I don’t think any conclusions should be drawn beyond ‘we have ballsed up the data’.

The vaccine looks hopeful, but I am concerned about the low numbers that have had it in total. If only around 100 have caught covid in total, this isn't a huge number to compare placebo and vaccine.

I have my fingers crossed for a vaccine.

I totally see where @sirfredfredgeorge is coming from on vaccinating our country first. If nothing else I know a couple of people who probably can't have the vaccine but are very vulnerable. If we can get herd immunity through it, then we will protect people like that.

However I hope that the vaccine will be made freely available in countries where they will not be able to afford it, and especially if there ends up being bidding wars over the vaccines available.
Maybe all countries could be obliged to give, say 10% of all they purchase for other countries who can't afford it?

On the distribution

"AstraZeneca will have 200m doses of its candidate vaccine developed by the University of Oxford by the end of 2020, with 700m ready globally by the end of the first quarter of 2021, operations executive Pam Cheng has said.
Cheng told a briefing that there would be 20m doses in the UK by the end of the year, with 70m more for the UK by the end of March that year." - Guardian

If I'm reading this correctly then AZ will make 200m doses by dec 31, 2020 and only 10% of that will be coming to the UK, right?

1. What is the distribution of the remaining 180m? Why haven't our gov bought more? From this it's obviously not a capacity issue, but a money issue? Don't they have friend at AZ who need crony money?
2. this will be enough for 10m ppl + the pfizer for another 5m. That is only around 20% of the population. Meaning that restrictions will still have to be taken seriously. My worry is that once there is even one person inoculated most ppl will go back to "normal". Schools won't change policies, etc which has the potential of a mini-catastrophe. OR am I just being cynical and depressing?

The clinical trials, enrolling over 24,000 participants from diverse racial and geographical groups in the UK, Brazil and South Africa, will now continue to final analysis. Further trials are being conducted in the United States, Kenya, Japan and India and the trial team expect to have under 60,000 participants by the end of the year. These trials will provide regulators with further information about the efficacy and safety of the Oxford candidate vaccine, including its ability to both protect against and stop the transmission of COVID-19.

So far the results are based on 24,000 and a further 60,000 by the time it's approved

My niece is a paediatric registrar and on the Oxford trial. She tested negative for antibodies (which of course is why she could go on the trial) even though she had definitely had contact with symptomatic patients, sometimes with inadequate PPE, so it could be that she had some underlying immunity. Don't know yet whether she received the placebo or the vaccine - I guess they will tell participants!

@TheSunIsStillShining

I think you're being unduly pessimistic. I read that to mean that (assuming both Oxford and Pfizer are licensed) there will be sufficient vaccine stocks ready to go in the U.K. to cover the entire adult population by March. That seems pretty good to me!

[quote Sunshinegirl82]@TheSunIsStillShining

I think you're being unduly pessimistic. I read that to mean that (assuming both Oxford and Pfizer are licensed) there will be sufficient vaccine stocks ready to go in the U.K. to cover the entire adult population by March. That seems pretty good to me![/quote]
piss up in a brewery comes to mind....
sorry, you might be right... I'll disappear for a bit.

@TheSunIsStillShining there's not much point us demanding our full order of 100m vaccines by Christmas.... There's no way we could vaccinate people at that rate! It will enough of a challenge to vaccinate the number of vaccines we (hopefully!) will have access to in December

It's good that we aren't just looking after our own and they can distribute them to others.

@PrayingandHoping
ok, very fair point. But we could do with more imo.

Another question:
Does vaccination protect against catching or also stops spreading? I've read both versions

www.ovg.ox.ac.uk/news/oxford-university-breakthrough-on-global-covid-19-vaccine

I'm quite glad that I don't get any say in whether we get our vaccines first in this country or not. What I feel is probably the right thing ethically is very much at odds with what I'm so much hoping for for me and my family. But as someone has pointed out, the limiting factor may be how fast we can jab people. If we do manage the entire population (over 18s only I believe) by March/April I'll be delighted!

From that report:

"These data also suggest that this half dose and full dose regime could help to prevent transmission of the virus, evidenced by lower rates of asymptomatic infection in the vaccinees, with further information to become available when trial data are next evaluated."

@TheSunIsStillShining I think it's enough of a challenge with the number we've got. Have a chat with any go surgery about the number they can vaccinate.... alongside their usual work. The extra places that are being arranged are just that.... extra. There is a maximum rate that people can get vaccinated.

The Oxford one IS showing signs that is it stopping spread. Which I haven't read the others have reported.

[quote PrayingandHoping]@TheSunIsStillShining I think it's enough of a challenge with the number we've got. Have a chat with any go surgery about the number they can vaccinate.... alongside their usual work. The extra places that are being arranged are just that.... extra. There is a maximum rate that people can get vaccinated.

The Oxford one IS showing signs that is it stopping spread. Which I haven't read the others have reported. [/quote]
That’s incredible

@PrayingandHoping

If it's true than yay! :) I do hope dentists are in the first batch to get it as I'm in need to go to mine....

Don't they have friend at AZ who need crony money?

Wow, just wow. Please read up on the Oxford Astra Zeneca pledges, not for profit, global supply of vaccines to the world, supported by our government ie: us. Also read up on Covax and Gavi worldwide vaccination programmes.

My niece is a paediatric registrar and on the Oxford trial. She tested negative for antibodies (which of course is why she could go on the trial) even though she had definitely had contact with symptomatic patients

That's amazing, why have those criteria, with an antibody test that 72% (under recent infection, let along longer), there's a much higher chance than the general population that they'd actually have had it. That's a waste of a candidate - presumably they must've very expected there to be little virus spread in the communities so went looking for high risk by profession.

Which would be an explanation of why the infection rate was low - of course it also means that the protection rate may not extend to the general population either.

[quote TheSunIsStillShining]@PrayingandHoping

If it's true than yay! :) I do hope dentists are in the first batch to get it as I'm in need to go to mine....[/quote]
Are they in the 'at risk' category though? If not sirfredfredgeorge magnanimously wants to donate your dentist's dose to someone not in the UK first, so you may be waiting a while longer.