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

@NeurotreeWenceslas - as far as I know, this is still the latest update. All fluff about how helpful the poo monitoring and how helpful it will be to monitor vaccine impact; but no charts for England, only Scotland: www.gov.uk/government/publications/defrajbc-wastewater-covid-19-monitoring-in-the-uk-summary-19-november-2020.

Very good to hear the news today! I'm breastfeeding my toddler (1-2 x per day at this point) and will be taking the vaccine if it's offered to me (reckon I'm very low priority though). I'm over 35 and teach face to face at a university (albeit not teaching now due to holidays, and not as many hours in person as in a typical year).

@NeurotreeWenceslas and @MRex - thank you, that's what I thought but was hopeful it just might be a blanket ok! I'm due in Feb and hope to breastfeed this one for at least a year (I fed my first for nine months) which is why I'm particularly interested.

Just watched this press conference from the MHRA, JVCI and Commission on human vaccine working group.

Brilliant.

mobile.twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1eaKbnBWBveKX

Big fan of June Raine. It’s a bit like watching Brenda Hale all over again {looks for spider emoji}.

My main take out is that we shouldn’t be too harsh on oaktree. I agree there is something “off” about the way oaktree speaks about ox/AZ versus Pfizer/Biontech, however, we shouldn’t disregard the questions.

Many journalists asking similar questions.

Many issues with the trial, which I hope will shortly become clearer. I still think we are extremely lucky to have a vaccine that is at least 50% efficacious and can be delivered in a mass vaccination programme .

My main take home points.

By design, the study had a range of intervals between doses (4-26 weeks!!) allowing assessment of best gap to use. Data most robust for 12 weeks.

Insufficient data on effect on transmission .

Insufficient data on effect on new variant. New data coming in “days” (she then added) “and weeks”.

It does not offer protection until 22 days after first dose.

Based on data from a subset ( will find out the composition in the coming days), first dose is ~70% effective at 22 days to 12 weeks. This is slightly higher than the 62 (?)% in the lancet paper, but that was a different (larger group).

The Apparent increased efficacy (90%) from the sub group who accidentally received half dose in trial is confounded by the fact there were many people in that subgroup with longer gaps between dosing. So it can’t be attributed to lower first dose. It may be the longer gap.

They didn’t use enough over 65s but we should have more data early jan.

We await the Public Assessment Report for more information.

My summary:

good enough is good enough.

this is all positive. We have enough info. This vaccine will be efficacious enough to take the edge off covid19 and prevent the collapse of the NHS ( if it can be rolled out quick enough). That is all we need right now. It will buy time for improvements.

This was clearly a very complex trial which got messy. I have worked on trials in the past but only those with significant knowledge of this trial will know if it was inevitable or badly designed. Who cares? There will be more and improved trials, therapeutics and drugs. This is what we need now.

Re the poo monitoring, I get the impression that it's at its most useful when cases are very low. For instance, Australia are using it to detect outbreaks very early and are then locking down/closely monitoring the local area. It looks incredibly useful.

At the moment, all that the poo is going to tell us (in the UK) is that there is shedloads of virus around everywhere, and we sort of already know that...

@everythingthelighttouches

Just watched this press conference from the MHRA, JVCI and Commission on human vaccine working group.

Brilliant.

mobile.twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1eaKbnBWBveKX

Big fan of June Raine. It’s a bit like watching Brenda Hale all over again {looks for spider emoji}.

My main take out is that we shouldn’t be too harsh on oaktree. I agree there is something “off” about the way oaktree speaks about ox/AZ versus Pfizer/Biontech, however, we shouldn’t disregard the questions.

Many journalists asking similar questions.

Many issues with the trial, which I hope will shortly become clearer. I still think we are extremely lucky to have a vaccine that is at least 50% efficacious and can be delivered in a mass vaccination programme .

My main take home points.

By design, the study had a range of intervals between doses (4-26 weeks!!) allowing assessment of best gap to use. Data most robust for 12 weeks.

Insufficient data on effect on transmission .

Insufficient data on effect on new variant. New data coming in “days” (she then added) “and weeks”.

It does not offer protection until 22 days after first dose.

Based on data from a subset ( will find out the composition in the coming days), first dose is ~70% effective at 22 days to 12 weeks. This is slightly higher than the 62 (?)% in the lancet paper, but that was a different (larger group).

The Apparent increased efficacy (90%) from the sub group who accidentally received half dose in trial is confounded by the fact there were many people in that subgroup with longer gaps between dosing. So it can’t be attributed to lower first dose. It may be the longer gap.

They didn’t use enough over 65s but we should have more data early jan.

We await the Public Assessment Report for more information.

My summary:

good enough is good enough.

this is all positive. We have enough info. This vaccine will be efficacious enough to take the edge off covid19 and prevent the collapse of the NHS ( if it can be rolled out quick enough). That is all we need right now. It will buy time for improvements.

This was clearly a very complex trial which got messy. I have worked on trials in the past but only those with significant knowledge of this trial will know if it was inevitable or badly designed. Who cares? There will be more and improved trials, therapeutics and drugs. This is what we need now.

In the document the government released it states the divergence in dose interval was due to “logistical issues” which don’t sound like it was by design. According to Hilda Bastion there was variation in potency of dosage across the explanatory subgroup the MHRA has chosen as well. It’s all a bit of a muddle.

Overall it does feel like cherry picking again to me. Hopefully the headline stats from this new subgroup of 53% efficacy after one dose and 70% after two doses hold up.

Worth noting the MHRA has stated that the results of the half dose regimen (the supposed 90% efficacy arm) were not born out by full analysis, so those who raised questions on that have been validated.

Also not sure what the AZ boss was going on about a few days back re 95% efficacy.

My (limited) understanding of the new 'longer interval' data is that it is another bit of serendipity. The Oxford Trial was paused for quite a long time in the USA after a participant experienced a serious adverse event. This meant that some participants, rather than getting their second dose after four weeks, got it much later. This gave some unexpected info about the impact of different intervals on efficacy. No idea how many participants fell into this subgroup but hopefully the full protocol will be published soon.

Be really interesting to see the data from US and any other outstanding information.

Thank you everything, that's the data-driven commentary I was looking for!

It has always seemed muddled to me - based on the summaries and criticisms I'd read, nothing more- I had hoped more robust data was collected but we are where we are.

@everythingthelighttouches thank you for that clear summary.

I wanted to ask some probably silly questions, you say the trial was “messy”. The MHRA are seemed very clear that they were convinced of the safety of the vaccine.

I assume from this that the “messy” element doesn’t relate to safety, but more to level of efficacy?

I hope that makes sense...

@1990 Yes I think the "messiness" of the Oxford trial does very much relate to effecacy and not safety. For various logistical and cock-up related reasons participants had different doses and at different intervals. None of these differences were associated with any adverse reactions so on safety, it's all fine.

On effecacy, the trial wasn't designed to be testing out two different dosing options and differences in the timing of the two doses, so the numbers in each subgroup are too small and the composition of the groups different from each other. This means we can't be sure of the precise impact that these small changes will make.

However, the bigger picture is that the vaccine works in most people, no matter which dosing option or timing you use. So getting it into as many higher risk people as fast as possible is the sensible thing to do. You don't need to know whether people are 62%, 70% or any other >50% protected to make the decision to roll it out as fast as possible now. You could find these things out via a further trial and know in a year's time exactly which dosing regime works best, but by that time, we'd most of us have caught it naturally and tens of thousands would be dead.

Statement on new tiers coming up at 3pm today btw, followed by announcement on schools at 3.30.

Tiers?

twitter.com/mollie_malone1/status/1344297712838193153?s=21

www.gov.uk/guidance/full-list-of-local-restriction-tiers-by-area

Did anyone else watching Matt Hancock think he said we have 510 000 doses of the vaccine ( assume he meant Oxford) available with more in February?

I’m assuming ( hoping?) that can’t be correct.

Em777
You’re right, there’s a bit of cherry picking going on and I do think the mhra are not being completely transparent, but I think it will come.

I haven’t read the doc yet, only listened to the press conference from them (I recommend it). I will read the doc you refer to later.

I quoted directly when I said “by design” so I suspect they were being a bit misleading on that point, I’m sure the written document is more accurate.

I do wish they wouldn’t try to fudge it and be more upfront.

Perhaps there is part of the trial which was designed to have differing intervals between doses and in addition , due to study pauses and other incidental reasons, additional participants ended up with a longer interval?? We’ll find out soon, I think.

“ Worth noting the MHRA has stated that the results of the half dose regimen (the supposed 90% efficacy arm) were not born out by full analysis, so those who raised questions on that have been validated. ”

Yes, I did notice this and mentioned it because they went on to say in the presser that they think part of the reason there was higher efficacy in the “low first dose” cohort, was because they also had a longer interval and that could positively impact efficacy.

I’m wondering if this lower first dose/larger gap all comes down to the same issue, which is that the chimp adenovirus vector may potentially elicit an immune response in of itself. This may prevent entry of the vaccine in the booster dose, reducing efficacy. So, the longer gap/lower first dose may not elicit as much of a response against the vector, allowing more of the booster to get in.

This is a theory by one of the Oxford leads, I’ll find the link.

Apparently this was a known issue and for this very reason, the Russians used a slightly different chip adenovirus vector in their second booster shot.

firefliess
“ However, the bigger picture is that the vaccine works in most people, no matter which dosing option or timing you use. So getting it into as many higher risk people as fast as possible is the sensible thing to do. You don't need to know whether people are 62%, 70% or any other >50% protected to make the decision to roll it out as fast as possible now. You could find these things out via a further trial and know in a year's time exactly which dosing regime works best, but by that time, we'd most of us have caught it naturally and tens of thousands would be dead.”

^This

Bang on the money.

@littlestpogo

Did anyone else watching Matt Hancock think he said we have 510 000 doses of the vaccine ( assume he meant Oxford) available with more in February?

I’m assuming ( hoping?) that can’t be correct.

I didn’t hear it but just heard commentator say same number. Not sure which vaccine but good to get clarification. I thought we’d been producing at risk

I heard him say that in answer to a question about how many doses were available now. I presume his answer literally meant now, today. The AZ vaccine is ready for distribution but not actually available to use as of today.

Yes - 510,000 dosages available straight away with more available in Feb. Not sure when in Feb.

I don't really get it, if we are vaccinating at 1,000,000 per week, that is about 3.5 days worth of vaccine. I wonder if we are going to run out at some point in January of both vaccines.

It says here millions due BY February, which I am hoping means 'in January' - I thought they had a lot of this stuff made already.
metro.co.uk/2020/12/30/uk-has-530000-doses-of-oxford-vaccine-available-from-monday-13826129/

I thought the development of the Oxford vaccine was as a vaccine for a pandemic.
Designed to be a stop gap until more vaccines were developed.
It started life as a vaccine for disease X.

@TomatoesAreFruit - that’s what confused me.

Here:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8391769/AstraZeneca-manufacturing-Covid-vaccine-three-countries.html

And more recently:

www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/wales-covid-vaccine-coronavirus-when-19538651

It says they are producing 150,000 a day

I have 1 question (ok, a million, but I'll just go for one now)

I'm happy that sec schools will be delayed until the 18th (if all goes well). But what do they expect to happen after the 18th if they:

• send kids back to the same environment as before*
• no mass vaccinations is going to happen by then
• even if a miracle happened and our numbers were in the 100s not 50k+ there is still no effective ttr....

*- even worse because no isolation but flawed lateral flow test idea

What will prevent us from being in almost exactly in the same position as now in 2 months?

Did anyone with at least one brain cell thought this through?
There's kicking the can down the road and then there's this.