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.

From what I am hearing, test availability is no longer an issue, at least in London. My friend got her DS tested this weekend. Booked an appointment in a walk-in centre for the same day, got the result back in about 28-30 hours (negative). She was surprised it was so easy. She also had to test him in early September (poor little guy is prone to coughs) and it was much more of a challenge.

I think there is still a myth (very prevalent on MN) that tests are somehow rationed and it is almost wartime thrift and Blitz spirit not to get a test unless you have all three symptoms and are preferably at death's door...

Certainly is true at my school.

Do you think that this sample (below) would really be representative?
"Sampling
A sample of 6,029 households was randomly selected from those that had previously completed the Labour Market Survey (LMS). From each household, one adult was selected at random but with unequal probability. Younger and older (over 74 years) people were given higher selection probability than other people because of under-representation in the sample available for the survey. The survey also includes a boosted sample for England, to allow more detailed analysis at a regional level, which are available in the datasets."

It seems to be very small, but I don't have an opinion as I'm not a statistician.

Sounds very ONS. It does look small, but random selection to meet population mix should give it some level of validity. I find many of the surveys and research to be surprisingly small sample groups though, and am getting used to that, but prefer to see something repeated 4-5 times when it's small samples before giving it the weight of probable fact.

@wondersun see up thread, page 21, for p2 positivity rates for each English council area.

@Thesun Whether it's a big enough sample depends how common the thing you're looking for is. Eg if you wanted to know whether men were taller than women in average it would be fine as there'd be 3000+ in each group. But if your wanted to know whether black women had an earlier menopause than Chinese women, you'd find too few black/Chinese menopausal women in your random sample to give you a meaningful result (ie, one or two anomalies could mess up your averages). It also depends how strong the variance between groups is. So there's never a simple answer to how big a sample needs to be.

Thanks! This is the sample underlying the gov winter plan. Results are shown as 97% of the population are wearing masks. It seemed unbelievable having been outside, so started digging on how they came to this %. I'm on the fence still. Than again, nowadays I don't believe gov even if they are asking a question. But this too shall pass...hopefully

Probably 97% of the sample are wearing masks where they have to ie in shops and on public transport. I live in the same borough as TheSunIsStillShining and very few people are wearing masks in the street or the park, but virtually everyone is in shops.

I think there is still a myth (very prevalent on MN) that tests are somehow rationed and it is almost wartime thrift and Blitz spirit not to get a test unless you have all three symptoms and are preferably at death's door...

Well I got a letter from PHE via the school which pretty much encouraged this. Don't test your child unless 3 symptoms. Don't waste tests. "We're all in it together" kind of thing.

Yup. We have been told this as staff at my school!

If it's true than yay! smile I do hope dentists are in the first batch to get it as I'm in need to go to mine I got an appointment just as the first lockdown ended and managed to get an hygienist appointment on Friday 13th, not an auspicious date but all went well. Hygienist couldn't do a polish but she gave me samples of the polish they use so I could do it at home.

I've got another appointment for a check up and hygienist in February. I assumed all dentists were getting back to normal.

@ancientgran
they might be, but I'm not willing to take the risk of someone breathing down my mouth for a prolonged period of time. She always wears a mask and yet I can always tell what she had for breakfast (slightly and she never has garlic :))

Re testing availability- some areas just seem to be jumping up and down a bit with numbers which doesn’t suggest consistency / people getting the tests when they need them.

I guess we won’t know much either way until we see the hospital admissions start to drop. Is there still a five day lag with this data? I’m wondering how long it will take to show up on admissions?

www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-schools-urgent-warning-over-misleading-teacher-covid-data?fbclid=IwAR3lVBqIFOSb_AhQXDrTzOG2HGNBDM1QdIQP8cFns3xpkZtpJC3WcSZ-O_w

I’m having severe trust issues with data at the moment.

jumping up and down a bit with numbers
Clusters cause this; care homes, factories, even illegal wedding parties or big funerals. The lag and resurge a week later is those clusters then infecting their families. It's been common since the start in the data patterns. If you search local news, most of the time you can locate the specific cause.

it seems that over recent weeks that cases are being reported through more quickly. We all know that on each daily release of numbers a range of specimen dates are covered - when today's release happens a small percentage will be from tests yesterday, the bulk will then come from tests taken on Sunday and Saturday, and then filling gaps from Friday, a few more for Thursday and then stragglers from earlier than that.

The graph shows the daily percentage of cases with up to Day-3 specimen date reported each day in England along with the 7 day rolling average; starting from 31st Aug (and the average 7 days later).

A bit of a rollercoaster at times but a lot more consistency - close to 90% - over the past few weeks.

www.tes.com/news/coronavirus-schools-urgent-warning-over-misleading-teacher-covid-data?fbclid=IwAR3lVBqIFOSb_AhQXDrTzOG2HGNBDM1QdIQP8cFns3xpkZtpJC3WcSZ-O_w I’m having severe trust issues with data at the moment.

It's absolutely shocking. Good for Dr Rasmussen for speaking up. Why did they exclude data from 17-31 October? It does appear to be a very deliberate attempt to misrepresent what the data actually shows.

@TheSunIsStillShining

Oh I thought you couldn't get an appointment. Strangely I felt quite safe at the dentists, not sure why because obviously you are in close contact. I know at the surgery I go to it is harder to get a hygienist appointment than a dentist appointment. The rooms have to be cleaned and left fallow for a period after each appointment so dentists are getting priority for available rooms. I was so happy to see the hygienist but I am a bit phobic at the idea of dentures so the dentist is a priority for me. I suppose I'm also lucky in that generally Devon has been low figures so probably not as scary as some places.

My kids all live in their university cities and can't get appointments.

@ILoveJKRowling I thought so too when I saw that thread, but in looking at the data that someone on this thread helpfully linked to yesterday, I don't think she's actually correct about the things she is claiming. The time period appears to be the same for the different groups they compared. And if you add up the totals for the three different types of teachers their overall rate appears exactly the same as other professionals. See discussion we were having previously in this. Her biog also describes her as being involved in campaigns to allow children to be taken out of schools, so I think that (despite impressive academic credentials) she is picking and choosing data and trying to make the case for a cover up when there really doesn't seem to be one (just some not-really-adequate data where the numbers aren't huge and there is no observable difference between teachers and others as of mid October)

On risk for teachers - even Sarah Rasmussen herself had to post several follow up tweets to “clarify” her previous statements.

I do not think anyone who spent time on the actual numbers would dispute that (i) the sample is relatively small (which is often the case with ONS), (ii) the conclusion that “there is no evidence of increased risk” is different from “there is evidence of no incremental risk” and (iii) the only available data is produced with a significant lag (again, it is common for ONS). However, it is still the latest independently produced piece of analysis we appear to have at present.

I do not think the ONS would fabricate data deliberately, and I think it's inappropriate to make public suggestions that they would without actual evidence from the request to look into it. Trial by Twitter is even worse than trial by media, at least the media ask for a comment first!

In terms of the data itself, I'm curious about why nobody has suggested that the other teachers might be university, further education, tutors, other education or even schoolkids incorrectly tagged by linking to schools. I'm just not sure why the assumption is that people would see a category called "primary teacher" and select "other teacher" instead.

Another vaccine question if I may

I keep seeing posts about ‘one trick pony’ etc assuming you can only use it once.

Does anyone know is this a well-known fact and did Oxford go ahead anyway? Or is it more speculation at this point

Only use what once?

MRex The Oxford AZ vaccine. A few posts like this:

Paraphrasing another post - Primarily used chimp because needed a virus most humans had not seen before. The body builds up immunity against the adenovirus as well afterwards. On booster shot the body mainly reacts to the adenovirus domains and not the spike of the sars2. Possibly why the lower dose might be more effective and also why Ox AZ cannot be repeated.

I’ve read it a few times on here but not sure where it’s coming from or what the validity is. First time I’ve heard this line of thinking and wondering if it’s general knowledge and I’ve missed it.

The body builds up immunity against the adenovirus as well afterwards
Nope, it's altered to take the covid spike protein.

On booster shot the body mainly reacts to the adenovirus domains and not the spike of the sars2.
It's a written sleight-of-hand manoever popular with those who make money from anti-vax and other conspiracy theories. They have you looking at the adenovirus instead of looking at people not catching covid. Trial members catching or not catching covid in hospitals and the community show the reaction of the body to fighting off covid. Less people caught covid in the vaccinated groups.

Who are these numpties?