Daily numbers, graphs, analysis thread

[NoGoodPunsLeft]

UK govt pressers Slides & data www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasets-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conferences#history
R estimates UK & English regions www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk
Imperial UK weekly LAs, cases / 100k, table, map, hotspots imperialcollegelondon.github.io/covid19local/#table
School statistics Attendance explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/attendance-in-education-and-early-years-settings-during-the-coronavirus-covid-19-outbreak
Modelling real number of UK infections February to date Link broken?
NHS England Hospital activity www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-hospital-activity/
NHs England Daily deaths www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
MSAO Map of English cases Link broken?
Cases Tracker England Local Government lginform.local.gov.uk/reports/view/lga-research/covid-19-case-tracker
ONS MSAO Map English deaths www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/
CovidMessenger live update by council district in England www.covidmessenger.com/
Scot gov Daily data www.gov.scot/publications/coronavirus-covid-19-daily-data-for-scotland/
Scotland TravellingTabby LAs, care homes, hospitals, tests, t&t www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/
PH Wales LAs, tests, ONS deaths public.tableau.com/profile/public.health.wales.health.protection#!/vizhome/RapidCOVID-19virology-Public/Headlinesummary
NI Dashboard app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjoiZGYxNjYzNmUtOTlmZS00ODAxLWE1YTEtMjA0NjZhMzlmN2JmIiwidCI6IjljOWEzMGRlLWQ4ZDctNGFhNC05NjAwLTRiZTc2MjVmZjZjNSIsImMiOjh9
ICNRC Intensive Care National Audit & Research reports www.icnarc.org/Our-Audit/Audits/Cmp/Reports
NHS t&t England & UK testing Weekly stats www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-test-and-trace-statistics-england-weekly-reports
PHE Surveillance reports & LA Local Watchlist Maps by LSOA www.gov.uk/government/collections/nhs-test-and-trace-statistics-england-weekly-reports
ONS England infection surveillance report each Friday www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/previousReleases
Datasets for ONS surveillance reports www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/datasets/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveydata/2020
ONS Roundup deaths, infections & economic reports www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/articles/coronaviruscovid19roundup/2020-03-26
Zoe Uk data covid.joinzoe.com/data#interactive-map
ECDC rolling 14-day incidence EEA & UK read://https_www.ecdc.europa.eu/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ecdc.europa.eu%2Fen%2Fcases-2019-ncov-eueea
Worldometer UK page www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/
Our World in Data GB test positivity etc, DIY country graphs ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/united-kingdom?country=~GBR
FT DIY graphs compare deaths, cases, raw / million pop ig.ft.com/coronavirus-chart/?areas=gbr&areas=fra&areas=esp&areas=ita&areas=deu&areas=swe&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnj&byDate=1&cumulative=1&logScale=1&per100K=1&values=deaths
Alama Personal COVID risk assessment alama.org.uk/covid-19-medical-risk-assessment/
Local Mobility Reports for countries www.google.com/covid19/mobility/
UK Highstreet Tracker for cities & large towns Footfall, spend index, workers, visitors, economic recovery www.centreforcities.org/data/high-streets-recovery-tracker/

⏭ Our STUDIES Corner ⏮www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/3869571-Studies-corner?msgid=99913434

We welcome factual, data driven and analytical contributions
Please try to keep discussion focused on these

@PropertyHelp thank you! I always get Bristol wrong! I’m never quite sure what county to list Bristol county as. I will double check the ONS geo portal tomorrow to check the naming - I vaguely recall it wasn’t entirely obvious

I think they only count it as a definitely reinfection if they've sequenced it and it's different sequences, thus proving that it's a reinfection not a recurrence of the same one.

That was the case at one point, which obviously reduces the number that can be counted as reinfection as a high proportion won't have been sequenced.

If they've changed it to 2 positive tests with a break of (eg) 6 months, then that will increase the number of potential reinfections.

[quote Firefliess]@Queen re the "probable reinfections" - There have been about 2m Covid cases altogether identified by tests (according to government dashboard) - so that's about 3% of the population. If those who'd had it were as likely as everyone else to catch it again, we'd expect at least 3% of new cases to be people who'd had a previous positive test (probably more in practice as those who catch it once are likely to be more at risk though their lifestyle/job of catching it again).

But there's also several million more who believe they had Covid in the spring when they couldn't get tested, though they won't all be correct. So depends what they count as a "probable" reinfection. If it's just the people whose infections have been confirmed by tests, then those figures suggest that previous exposure does make you much less likely to catch the new strain (and be sufficiently ill that you get tested) though not the risk isn't zero[/quote]
But if they only count it as a probable reinfection if there was at least three months between positive tests then we need to discount 80% of positive tests as they are too recent to have been followed by another positive test three months later - that would get you down to 0.6% which isn't far off the observed 0.44% which has to be a significant underestimate.

That's all a massive oversimplification anyway. They'll need to either do some complex modelling that might not even have been done before or they'll need to do something like a retrospective cohort study.

Plus the controlling will probably be difficult since they'll need to take into account things like the prevalence of each strain in each person's area at the time of reinfection. And they might just not have enough data.

@Witchend

I think they only count it as a definitely reinfection if they've sequenced it and it's different sequences, thus proving that it's a reinfection not a recurrence of the same one.

That was the case at one point, which obviously reduces the number that can be counted as reinfection as a high proportion won't have been sequenced.

If they've changed it to 2 positive tests with a break of (eg) 6 months, then that will increase the number of potential reinfections.

If they're only counting reinfections if they have the previous sequence data then assuming that they've always been sequencing 10% of infections (seems unlikely we were doing this in March) and they're picking people to sequence at random then the 4 people in 915 is more like 40. This would be even higher if they increase sequencing in hard hit areas (i.e. people in Kent weren't being sequenced when Manchester was screwed) or lower if these people were picked because they'd already had a positive test.

Just came on here to find the data thread after missing it for a couple of days - was hoping to see if there was some kind of catch up included in the numbers today but sadly appears not.

Does anyone know the total number of deaths this year so far compared to previous years. I ha e tried google but it just brings up the current week and I can't make head nor tail of it.
I am sick if people sayythe death numbers haven't risen. They fail to see the sacrifices for this.

[quote littleowl1]@PropertyHelp thank you! I always get Bristol wrong! I’m never quite sure what county to list Bristol county as. I will double check the ONS geo portal tomorrow to check the naming - I vaguely recall it wasn’t entirely obvious[/quote]
@littleowl1 if you look at the interactive map, Bristol seems to have its own 'area' 🤷‍♀️

@Coffeeandte

Does anyone know the total number of deaths this year so far compared to previous years. I ha e tried google but it just brings up the current week and I can't make head nor tail of it. I am sick if people sayythe death numbers haven't risen. They fail to see the sacrifices for this.

ONs says about 83k

Total number of deaths from all causes?

Nooo - usually around 500k people die every year. I saw a Twitter thread on this yesterday and I think ewe are about 70k deaths more than last year so far. Will try and find it

@ceeveebee

Nooo - usually around 500k people die every year. I saw a Twitter thread on this yesterday and I think ewe are about 70k deaths more than last year so far. Will try and find it

Thank you

@Coffeeandte
No, that's excess.

feel free to look:
www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/deaths/datalist

Here
twitter.com/nickstripe_ons/status/1340411440117800960?s=21

567k deaths to week 49 this year, compared to 496k same time last year

That’s England and Wales only

.

Thank you.

@Queen Yes you're right if you exclude those who've tested positive in the last 6 months (or even just the last 3) it takes you down to under 500,000 with positive test results. So you'd expect less than 1% of new positive test results to have had it before if previous infection gives no protection. Really does depend how they measure their probable reinfection.

And yes, the ports closing to freight is a more urgent issue even than the new strain. Couldn't have been worse timing with no deal Brexit days away.

.

Bristol is its own county- it's not in "Avon", Somerset, North Somerset, Gloucestershire or South Gloucestershire

Could ask a question, please? Sky news is reporting that a government scientist is is saying that this new strain 'results in people having amuch bigger viral load.'

If this is true then surely we will see a greater number of more severe cases? All along we have been told that viral load affects how severe symptoms can be. I don't understand how they can say it is no more severe as a mutation if the viral load is greater.

Any explanations welcome - thank you!

You're right, higher viral load would be expected to increase disease severity. It might be the case that disease severity is increased but they haven't properly sifted through the data yet so can't be sure or they might be drip feeding like they've done throughout the pandemic. They're certainly playing down the increase in infectiousness (the increase in R of 0.4 they talked about is actually the bottom end of the estimate - it might be as high as 0.93). They're also underplaying the likely effect on vaccine efficacy - they're pushing that it should still work but neglecting to mention that there will probably be a drop in efficacy.
It is possible that some of the mutations are counterbalancing the increase in virulence from the increased viral load but if that's the case then we were very fortunate.

@Pebble21uk

Could ask a question, please? Sky news is reporting that a government scientist is is saying that this new strain 'results in people having amuch bigger viral load.'

If this is true then surely we will see a greater number of more severe cases? All along we have been told that viral load affects how severe symptoms can be. I don't understand how they can say it is no more severe as a mutation if the viral load is greater.

Any explanations welcome - thank you!

Put this on the new strains thread

It may not be the case

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/coronavirus/4110225-New-strain-stuff

Here some great answers from scientists

Thank you - it's sobering news!