Daily stats, numbers, data thread 28 Dec

[PatriciaHolm]

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]]
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/
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

For the Oxford trial, in the standard dose/standard dose cohort there were 98 cases, of which 71 were in the control group. Thus 27 (98-71) were in the vaccine group. You'd expect 71 cases in the vaccine group, too. The vaccine prevented 44 of them. 44/71 = 62%

Motorina thank you so much for your calm ,beautifully explained posts .

Can I ask ,from the above ,a cohort of 98 cases being studied seems quite small to me ? But I have zero knowledge ,is that size the norm ?

They've just said ok the briefing that pregnant and bf women should discuss with hcps. And side effects broadly similar to other vaccines.

.

@peridito - Oaktree55 asked many times for information about single dose efficacy when it had been explicitly posted for her. Oaktree55 then lied saying information was hidden about transverse myelitis when the information is in the same Lancet article and has been discussed several times. Even after having it pointed out again, Oaktree55 deliberately posted an earlier article about TM to pretend people were still asking questions that had been medically resolved by the time of the Lancet article. Being asked for evidence for the claims of further issues, Oaktree55 just told people to use Google and insulted everyone. To me, believing the best in people falls apart when they're given so many chances yet consistently continue an agenda.

The detailed Oxford info is out, linked in here: www.gov.uk/government/news/oxford-universityastrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-approved.

Ok ,this will be be my one post in response .

I don't agree with your analysis Mrex.I felt O's posts weren't as erudite or articulate as yours or others . I was interested in the debate and pleased to follow it ,I do think O lacked detail and gravitas .

I don't think she was lying ,my view was that she was presenting her case as best she could but becoming increasingly emotional .She felt people weren't listening ,had their heads in the sand . She expressed this frequently and with increasing force .I don't think this equates to insulting everyone .

I appreciate that you have a very different view and were very irked by O's posts . We're all different ,this isn't a court of law/trial to determine who is a good or bad poster . Your view will be as genuinely held as mine but I'm cutting Oakfield some slack .

This is an open forum ,there will be posters who are very driven to get a particular point across .I don't think that's wrong or inappropriate ,it's just the way it is . As others have pointed out ,there's more than one way of dealing with posts that you don't agree with and where persistent counter points are not taken aboard .

[quote MRex]The detailed Oxford info is out, linked in here: www.gov.uk/government/news/oxford-universityastrazeneca-covid-19-vaccine-approved.[/quote]
Am I missing something? This is just a press release, not details.

I appreciate that you have a very different view and were very irked by O's posts

We were ALL irked by O's posts. There was just something off about her line. She was only focused on promoting Novavax, and discrediting Oxford without credible data, and when pushed on this point just became increasingly aggressive.

As others, I am all for discussion on pro's and con's of ALL vaccine protocols, trial data, and scientific review. Unfortunately, O was just too blinkered to take on board anyone elses opinions, and therefore the thread was derailed to the point of oblivion.

She seems to have gone anyway, perhaps this mornings data calmed her.

To a pp who asked about the J&J vaccine, my firstpoint was primarily to annoy and perhaps distract O, but also as it is the next similar vaccine to Oxford, has completed phase 3, is presenting to MHRA in the next couple of weeks, and industry sources are saying it is a very good candidate.

Thanks for the link to the Oxford approval detail @Mrex. One thing I notice is that it's only approved for over 18s. The Pfizer one was over 16+ - so will they have to save some of that one for the 16/17 year olds? (Personal interest here as DD is 17 and very keen to get hers as she's worried festivals, gigs or foreign travel will be requiring vaccination.

@TheSunIsStillShining - it has the links to the healthcare provider and patient overviews that weren't provided earlier. Explains two 0.5 doses taken 4-12 weeks apart, side effects etc. This is what it links to, I just thought the press release was a nice intro: www.gov.uk/government/publications/regulatory-approval-of-covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca

@Firefliess - I hadn't noticed Pfizer was 16. I know there was some trial underway on children and older people that was mentioned in the press in October, but I can't find anything say when those trials are due to report.

Quite extraordinary from that government doc that: “Overall, among the participants who received COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 94.1% of participants were 18 to 64 years old.”

And so: “The number of COVID-19 cases (2) in 660 participants ≥65 years old were too few to draw conclusions on efficacy.”

This concerns me greatly given the AZ vaccine is more T cell orientated and older people produce less T cells.

Ought they not be excluding over 65s from receiving the Oxford one and prioritising the Pfizer for them?

@MRex
Thanks. Obv. need more coffee...

Pregnancy and women who are breastfeeding - the vaccine should only be considered for use in pregnancy when the potential benefits outweigh any potential risks for the mother and baby. Women should discuss the benefits and risks of having the vaccine with their healthcare professional and reach a joint decision based on individual circumstances. Women who are breastfeeding can also be given the vaccine.

Does anyone know quite what this means re breastfeeding - I'm not sure if it means 'women who are breastfeeding can be given the vaccine if, as is the case for pregnant women, their individual circumstances mean benefit outweighs risk' or if it's a more blanket 'breastfeeding women can have it '?

This I think:

if, as is the case for pregnant women, their individual circumstances mean benefit outweighs risk'

Breastfeeding and medication Facebook page has recently updated

@Em777

Quite extraordinary from that government doc that: “Overall, among the participants who received COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca, 94.1% of participants were 18 to 64 years old.”

And so: “The number of COVID-19 cases (2) in 660 participants ≥65 years old were too few to draw conclusions on efficacy.”

This concerns me greatly given the AZ vaccine is more T cell orientated and older people produce less T cells.

Ought they not be excluding over 65s from receiving the Oxford one and prioritising the Pfizer for them?

The previous paper did show a robust immune response in the elderly in both t cell and antibody titres.

www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-19-oxford-coronavirus-vaccine-produces-strong-immune-response-older-adults

More data will come from the US trial in the next few weeks too.

About the new strain - I read a paper yesterday (and have lost track of it) saying that a higher percentage of infected people had a significantly above average level of viral load than with the old strain.

Sorry for hypothesising, but does this mean that the mechanism behind increased spread may be an increased number of super spreaders? Or is the current theory still that it's to do with Ace receptors and a more generalised susceptibility? Or are we looking at a combination of those two things? I know we don't know anything for certain at the moment, but wondered if anyone had come across any more nuggets of info.

I was thinking this as I read one of the many school threads, where people were arguing about "My school does a really good job" "No, your school is just lucky" and thinking about how "lumpy" the data on affected schools was. I wonder if there is a substantially higher number of super spreaders, will this have the effect of making it much harder for schools to "get lucky"?

Again, sorry for the hypothesising.

Nellodee: For that to be answered -I think- a good cluster analysis would be needed on the ttr data. I have not found any indication that someone is doing this or not. And that dataset is not public domain. I would argue that robust, anonymized datasets should be made public.

I think it just means they have to tell breastfeeding women that there have been no trials so there is theoretical risk, but no known risk, then let them get on with it. The same as most medications to be honest, very few are explicitly stated as safe for breastfeeding, yet that's different than being known or expected to be actively unsafe. There can be a pass-forward effect; for example I took one thing that turned DS's wee brown, expected effect for the drug taker but harmless to both of us in that case.
There is a slight potebrial positive; the Oxford vaccine gives some IgA response peaking at 28 days; IgA can pass into breast milk, probably not enough for immunity but protective.
"Here we show that vaccination with ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 also generated increased levels of SARS-CoV-2 spike-specific IgM and IgA, with peak responses at day 14 or day 28, respectively (Fig.2a,band Supplementary Table2)."
www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-01194-5

I wish we did more reverse tracking in this country. I suppose it's impossible to do after a certain point.

@Mrex - yes I think that's exactly what it means. If you're over 35 or have known health risks you're almost certain up be advised to get the vaccine even if breastfeeding because the risks from Covid are known and real. If you're 20, healthy and plan to stop breastfeeding in a couple of months anyway, you might want to hang on a bit I guess.

@Noellodee

About the new strain - I read a paper yesterday (and have lost track of it) saying that a higher percentage of infected people had a significantly above average level of viral load than with the old strain.

Sorry for hypothesising, but does this mean that the mechanism behind increased spread may be an increased number of super spreaders? Or is the current theory still that it's to do with Ace receptors and a more generalised susceptibility? Or are we looking at a combination of those two things? I know we don't know anything for certain at the moment, but wondered if anyone had come across any more nuggets of info.

I was thinking this as I read one of the many school threads, where people were arguing about "My school does a really good job" "No, your school is just lucky" and thinking about how "lumpy" the data on affected schools was. I wonder if there is a substantially higher number of super spreaders, will this have the effect of making it much harder for schools to "get lucky"?

Again, sorry for the hypothesising.

Looking at the report that was linked here yesterday, it increases the proportion of people that are found to pass it on from 9.8% to 15.1%. If all of that 50% rise were super spreaders then things would probably be a lot worse. Everyone being just a little bit more infectious would fit the data well, I think.

Q I had last night while dozing; have they been able to track the new variant in pop samples?

It would make sense to do so in school waste if it spreads more easily than the last one among children. Then interventions could be targeted.

Poo that should say!