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.

Whoops, didn't include it, this is the social contacts report: osf.io/2txsr/.
It's a global review based on flu, but basically more older kids leave the house even if they're unwell, especially on Fridays and Saturdays.

Yes, that is exactly the issue with data, it simply can not allow quantified analysis of every variable. Anecdotal inputs can shed some light, as can some common sense! Thanks for your response, I look for to further discussions re interpretation and hope those who have left return re invigorated to add their perspectives.

Sorry, not sure why I tagged herecomesthsun again. I should have tagged @TheSunIsStillShining if anyone.

@Witchend - that would work. If one of the studies did as you suggest, that would solve transmission tracking more neatly too. Seroprevalence, then a weekly test of all household members plus their bubble; then the study knows who introduced it into the household and who they infected. Otherwise stating "X had it in this week and the others didn't" is meaningless, because Y might have had it the week before or catch it the week after, or not have it either time; all of which is relevant to determining like transmission. Another exciting option would be genome test tracking all cases in one community over a period of months to verify who was known to have infected whom last; not just the "80% came from Spain" but subsequent paths e.g. "20% infected from their household", "10% linked to this hospital", "10% linked to this one particular school" etc.

@Yummyoldbag Thanks :)
No resolution. On my side, I've made a forecast and now it's wait and see if the actual numbers correlate with it. If so, then my hypothesis will be plausible. If not, I was barking up the wrong tree.

I do enjoy the actual argument that is driven by facts, logic and data. And not he said/she said :)

@MRex no worries, there are just too many sun's shining on here :)

www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425

The BMJ aren’t holding back today! Covid-19: politicisation, “corruption,” and suppression of science

[quote Firefliess]@TheSunIsStillShining You're completely right about the 8% thing. It's lazy journalism again failing to distinguish "there is no link" (between having secondary aged children and getting seriously ill from Covid) with "we have failed to prove a statistically significant link with the data we have available" If a truly matched group of people without secondary aged children were 8% less likely to catch Covid then obviously they'd also be 8% less likely to get seriously ill. Children don't have some magic protective power over their parents that ensures they only get Covid mildly FFS!

It's possible that any age matched group they tried to compare to without children had a disproportionate number of people with serious health problems (who are less likely to have children) thus cancelling out any observed impact of catching Covid from children. Or simply that the numbers they looked at were too small to prove a statistical significance (most parents of secondary aged children will be under 60 so not very high risk) But not remotely plausible that catching Covid does not put you at greater risk of getting seriously ill from it, compared to not catching it! [/quote]
Yes, I'm pretty disgusted by how this is being presented.

Yes, perhaps people who are of an age to be parents are less likely to get seriously ill or die because they are younger on average. But they're still 8% more likely to get Covid-19 than if their children were being educated at home and isolating like the rest of us!

@MRex
Another exciting option would be genome test tracking all cases in one community over a period of months to verify who was known to have infected whom last; not just the "80% came from Spain" but subsequent paths e.g. "20% infected from their household", "10% linked to this hospital", "10% linked to this one particular school" etc.
That would be really interesting.

Out of interest, I can't find the data that the 8% additional risk (for parents of secondary school students) is based on. Can anyone point me to this? Also, is there an equivalent figure for parents of primary school age students?

On the sage notes what does external mean?
also it looks like children are likely to transmit than adults

This is anecdotal rather than data- but it is relevant to the collection of the data.

This is reported elsewhere on social media.

When you get on line to request a test (as I did for my son) you have to answer questions about the circumstances.

Apparently now, if you put that you work in a school or have children, or the test is for a child, the information comes up that no tests are available.

Conversely, if you go through the questions again and put slightly different details, not mentioning a connection to schools or children, a test becomes available.

So the system appears to be biased not to collect information about schools and not to test children.

It's unfortunate, if you look at this scientifically and medically, because important data is being lost (and also people are not being diagnosed and the infection is being spread further).

One can only speculate to the reasons for this (but not perhaps any further on a data thread).

@herecomesthsun good friend yesterday morning managed to book a test at a drive thru for her child and her and her husband who both work in a school. She had no issues. Got a test booked for later that morning

If she'd had to cover up the child and school info I'd have definitely heard about it!

That's very strange @herecomesthsun, it would have to be directly coded and there would be an evidence trail to exactly who did it.

Here's a few people answering the question about how teens are behaving during lockdown:
www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4079053-Are-you-allowing-teenage-DC-into-friends-houses.

also it looks like children are likely to transmit than adults

Not exactly, it means children are more likely to bring infection into households because, on average, they have got more "external exposure" than adults do. In other words, children may still not transmit as much as adults but because they are more likely to get infected in the first place, they are also more likely to trigger secondary transmissions (even at a lower rate).

External exposure relates to close contacts outside households (e.g. friends within and outside of school).

I would suspect, that the act of trying again to get a test again is probably why tests became available, as opposed to any grand conspiracy against testing children. I think it would just become too obvious if it was an active policy.

@herecomesthsun
I've a friend who's had 1 dc tested positive on Wednesday, her and one other on Thursday and another dc on Friday. The only place they go is to school, mum is at home (and one of the dc has been in direct contact with a positive at school). They haven't even been going shopping.

Much as I can believe that they want to hide the info about how much it's spreading in school, I don't think that is the case.

On a tangent, but covid related

www.theguardian.com/money/2020/nov/14/covid-jobs-crisis-could-have-lasting-impact-on-young-peoples-pensions

It talks about a person's pension pot and how young unemployment will affect their pension. If the state pension is limited to a max 165/week how will this have an adverse effect?
Yes, I can imagine edge cases, but in general ppl will still have 20-25 years to put into the pension pot.

It will be a real issue for those working then surely?

It is no surprise that secondary school students have more exposure and therefore more likely to bring infection into the home. They are out and about, on trains, on buses and coaches, with other kids who are also on trains and buses and coaches, interacting with one another all day, and outside of school, while parents are more likely to be wfh.

Dh and I don't go anywhere, we see each other, that's it. DD is in contact with hundreds of people a day, in several different spaces.

@herecomesthsun My brother (who is a teacher) had no problem getting same day tests for himself and my niece this week. That was on two separate days as my brother showed symptoms on one day and my niece a couple of days later.

@herecomesthsun I saw the scenario (tests suddenly becoming available if you changed whether the applicant attended or worked in a school) mentioned on the BRTUS page.

I have to say, I found it very hard to believe, as I have a few other stories on there. (Most of their stuff sounds true however!) Not that I'm saying any of The anxious parents on there are deliberately making stuff up but maybe it was some kind of error which they've over-interpreted?

Unless you've seen it or similar occurrences reported elsewhere?

• I meant, I have found a few other accounts on the page not very credible, not that I'm placing untrue stories on there!

I also saw that post and found it interesting that a number of posters had experienced such a similar error. I would have written it off as a glitch otherwise but am not sure why it would be the case for lots of people in different areas.

Does anyone know where the 8% figure comes from in terms of the actual data, and what the equivalent figure is for primary students??

The BBC article that refers to the research that mentions the 8% risk is here @Motherof Dragonite www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54794904. Says it's research by the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and the University of Oxford but unhelpfully fails to give a link

Well, when I put in the form for my son, in September, who is 12, it did seem possible that you got different results from different approaches to filling in the form. After being online for about a day and a half, and not getting a test, or not one anywhere near to us, I finally got a home test sent to us. But I had ticked the box saying "essential worker" (there was no box for a school pupil and we were told it was essential for him to be in school, so eventually I tried that).

I think that one issue is that care homes and care workers and possibly NHS workers have a priority. So it might be that some tests are held back for them. That would mean that, if there is excess demand, schools and teachers might not get a test. There might be a less malign intent behind it than first appears. But there might alternatively be a desire to minimise risk and concerns about schools, with an intention to promote the economy.

www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/comment/italy-managing-pandemic-much-efficiently/

Here is an article from the Telegraph describing the pandemic in Italy, in positive terms. Further down, they mention that tests are about to become freely available in Italian pharmacies, including for school pupils.