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

The whole world is wanting Pfizer and Modena is not going to be available before spring outside US if my understanding is correct.

Perhaps Israel are going it better - who knows.

But we need to be realistic.

Its Pfizer for most vulnerable and Oxford for everyone else.

If that buys us some time then its worth it.

I trust the MHRA. If Oxford should be binned then I don't think they will approve it.

Thanks for posting that report everythingthathelighttouches. So they have taken three months between positive PCR tests as probable reinfection. The rates of reinfection (for either strain) are quite concerning. They were looking at people who'd tested positive up until the 15th of December - 90 days before that was the 16th of September and only 390k people had had a positive test by then which is 0.585% of the population. With 0.113% of new strain infections and 0.17% of old strain infections being reinfections them we're only looking at about an 80% protection against reinfection after just a few months (assuming that everyone has an equal likelihood of exposure, which is of bollocks but we'd need to do some big complicated modeling or analysis of the NHS staff testing to unpick that).

It’s not whether it should be binned it’s clearly better than nothing. My point is the U.K. isn’t a backward country and we’re in a huge hole we need good decisions going forward. The MHRA’s remit isn’t to get the U.K. out of a hole. I think the baseline set was 50% efficacy for an acceptable vaccine but clearly deploying Oxford has potential issues which we all need to be aware of. As for the general “if the MHRA approve it then it’s good enough” people need to think about what they’re approving and what their remit is, which unfortunately isn’t the same as making the MHRA making decisions to get U.K. back to normal ASAP.

By the way other countries have been increasing orders for Pfizer, we haven’t (as far as I’m aware).

@Oaktree55 - I don't know why you're getting in such a twist about vaccinations that everything is looking like a problem. We have vaccines that work, this is GOOD NEWS. Those responsible for vaccine programmes are very well able to manage the risks and plans. If you don't trust MHRA / JCVI then just follow your own course and get a different one later privately, but there's a risk of you spreading needless anxiety right now so I'd ask you to just be a little more circumspect with how you phrase risks that may not occur and facts that are out of context.

1. We don't know that any of the vaccines (including Oxford) require annual or other boosters after their initial booster to know whether it matters or not if a vaccine can be used twice.
2. We also don't know that a second adenovirus shot won't work; if it won't, they can also pick a different adenovirus and go with that, it's not like there aren't enough strains out there!
3. We don't know that it won't work on the new strain, it's thought that it will and the new strains can be added to future vaccines regardless.
4. There is also an option to give Oxford now and a different vaccine next autumn. Nothing precludes that, other vaccines have been purchased too.
5. Israel is a TINY country in size and population, who have vaccinated fewer people so far than the UK.
6. Look at the issues with Pfizer distribution in the EU; there are huge risks if that is the long-term solution worldwide when the vaccine is so fragile. Vaccine refusal is also a far bigger risk to getting out of the pandemic than rightly refused efficacy (if it even is reduced efficacy, not just an older set of participants with mixed additional conditions).
7. There is a lot of money riding on some of these vaccines, be very wary of articles that have been paid for.

(Sorry, should say "slightly reduced efficacy" not "rightly refused efficacy")

I fear the Oxford vaccine is derailing this data thread in the same way schools did earlier incarnations.

^fears about the Oxford vaccine, that should say.

@MRex my issue (which is well researched and echoed by expert opinion and data) is that Oxford is seemingly a poor relation to other options and if we rush in we are in danger of creating a bigger problem than we’re already in.

The MHRA are there as I’ve said to approve for EU a safe and efficacious (over 50%) vaccine but that is not the same as the U.K. deploying the best vaccine to suit our particular situation. It may not get us out of the situation we are in.

Where is the trial data for taking different vaccine types?! There isn’t any as yet. So redeploying say Novavax after Oxford isn’t yet researched.

Let’s make sure we make decent decisions going forward as they’ve been rather lacking in U.K. to date.

The concerns I am presenting are widely available to read elsewhere. I think to glibly gloss over what are very valid concerns is rather naive.

opensafely.org/

Interesting data analyses programme

@Oaktree55 - why do you keep saying "approve for EU" out of interest? It's the EMA that does EU.
It's simply no good to demand that we worry about the same things that you worry about. There are many gaps meaning your fears may be unfounded, I have explained why and you have no rebuttal for any of that. There are also other risks you haven't covered like the massive risk of delaying vaccine programmes with a highly transmissible variant rushing across the country and closed schools. None of us have the knowledge nor skills of the group making the decisions; let them do their job and let those who trust them follow their decisions. If you choose a different path for yourself that's fine, but as I said you may want to be more wary of the money angle.

I presume EU is Emergency Use

[quote MRex]@Oaktree55 - I don't know why you're getting in such a twist about vaccinations that everything is looking like a problem. We have vaccines that work, this is GOOD NEWS. Those responsible for vaccine programmes are very well able to manage the risks and plans. If you don't trust MHRA / JCVI then just follow your own course and get a different one later privately, but there's a risk of you spreading needless anxiety right now so I'd ask you to just be a little more circumspect with how you phrase risks that may not occur and facts that are out of context.

1. We don't know that any of the vaccines (including Oxford) require annual or other boosters after their initial booster to know whether it matters or not if a vaccine can be used twice.
2. We also don't know that a second adenovirus shot won't work; if it won't, they can also pick a different adenovirus and go with that, it's not like there aren't enough strains out there!
3. We don't know that it won't work on the new strain, it's thought that it will and the new strains can be added to future vaccines regardless.
4. There is also an option to give Oxford now and a different vaccine next autumn. Nothing precludes that, other vaccines have been purchased too.
5. Israel is a TINY country in size and population, who have vaccinated fewer people so far than the UK.
6. Look at the issues with Pfizer distribution in the EU; there are huge risks if that is the long-term solution worldwide when the vaccine is so fragile. Vaccine refusal is also a far bigger risk to getting out of the pandemic than rightly refused efficacy (if it even is reduced efficacy, not just an older set of participants with mixed additional conditions).
7. There is a lot of money riding on some of these vaccines, be very wary of articles that have been paid for.[/quote] I think this is worth discussing on a scientific basis and the mere fact of discussing it is not "raising needless anxiety".

I say that as someone who would myself accept the Oxford vaccine if offered it, on my current knowledge about the vaccines, and as someone over 50 who is CEV.

@mrex I thought you were saying there’s too much discussion on this. Again you’re missing the point. I thought this thread was about data and discussion? That’s how this initially started debate over the poor Oxford Trial data. Like most people I’m concerned that the U.K. starts making some good decisions to get us out of this mess and I think it’s very valid to raise the point that if the CEO’s comments this week relating to the “magic formula” indeed relate to delayed dosing then we’re in potentially a big hole. We’re in huge danger of knee jerk decisions being made. Wanting Oxford to get us out of this and it actually doing so are two different things. I didn’t realise this thread was censored?!?! Bizarre.

I think you're confusing me with a different poster @Oaktree55, please scroll back to check. I did not ask you not to discuss risks, I asked you to be more circumspect with how you phrase risks, because you are frequently saying things that aren't known yet stating them as facts, and citing facts out of context. When I or anyone else pull you up on specific points, you don't respond on any of them, which is not how people discuss matters, that's just ranting.

I was the one who suggested that we are derailing the thread with continued discussion of the Oxford vaccine.

Before we go further down the rabbithole I'd just like to remind everyone that we all value the relatively safe space of this thread. We compromised it once a few months back when emotions were also running high. Let's not go there again.

@oaktree55 If we use oxvax to get a large swathe of the population vaccinated it will make a huge difference to infection rates. It doesn't need to be the best vac out there. But I think you'll be pleasantly surprised by the data to come.

ps. I -personally welcome any critique and open discussion on vaccines.
I am very cynical and it reassures me that A)others might have some concern - thus I'm not totally off the rails yet :) B)great way to be disproved, as others read different things and can link in stuff I might have missed.

Fine no problem. I’m sure a few people got the gist of where I’m going with concerns. Time will tell.

Good News - we have at least 1 person fully vaccinated with Pfizer!

That's already been linked for you before @Oaktree55, here it is again: www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)32623-4/fulltext.
The specific section: "Surprisingly, however, efficacy was substantially lower in the SD/SD cohort (62·1% [95% CI 41·0 to 75·7]; 27 [0·6%] of 4440vs71 [1·6%] of 4455) than in the LD/SD cohort (90·0% [67·4 to 97·0]; three [0·2%] of 1367vs30 [2·2%] of 1374), which remained after accounting for differences in age and time between doses. Efficacy was similar when evaluated starting at 21 days after the first standard dose (192 cases), suggesting there is at least short-term protection with one dose."

I'm certainly very classy, so I'll give you half of that. That's why I respond even when someone is rude.

It is interesting, but I am wary of talking down vaccines because it seems to me that many, many people are scared of them in general. I think the variations on the theme of the Oxford vaccine are interesting from a scientific point of view (why would lower dose first/ wait longer work better?) I also agree that various people associated with the vaccine cheerfully mentioning headline news like that, with no supporting information does not help their case. I also know of many countries that do many things better than the uk, for many reason s, and vice versa. I want the best for the UK, and the people in it (so this is a great time to be alive....) Maybe I am naive to think the MHRA are capable, but they are my only bet for now, as I can't have a vaccine they haven't approved. I can't refuse to go to work if the rules say schools stay open where I am. I personally think schools should be closed, at least in some areas, and we need a vaccine being rolled out to deal with the new variant or the NHS will be overwhelmed. There is a thread saying this would never have happened 40 years ago, we'd have just got on with it. Our discussions, alongside MHRA / GOV decisions IS us getting on with it, just like in the supposedly marvelous/ re-imagined 1980s we got on with things. I lived in a city with nuclear bunkers under it. Great. Were they a stupid waste of money? A way of keeping people scared enough to comply with government? A really good idea to provide for citizens? We can't decide, yet, about the best vaccine, because we lack information, we have no option but to rely on people with more information, which I would be interested to know, as well as taking the vaccine programme on offer. In the mean time, I am wary of talking down vaccines, as I said.

@FATEdestiny
Question
Back in the first wave, WHO said countries should have a positive test rate of less than 3% and higher than this indicates they are not testing enough.

Does this still stand? Because much has changed since then.

I'm Nottm/Derby boarder (tier 3) and I can see thateverycouncil area has a positivity rate of between 7% and 10%, it's been these values for ages. Yet there are ample testing facilities available and even asymptomatic people can be tested. Short of mass testing for all, how can we get a positivity rate less than 3%?

I was just looking back for anyone's answers to this because it struck me a interesting and don't see any, so reposting the question in full to prompt responses.

I don't know the answer. As you say, we can't see any obvious test volume constraints here now and it flags that there's an issue but positivity rates seem to stay stubbornly high when cases go up. Actually it looks like it's been consistently similar everywhere in the world where only reduced cases ultimately bring down test positivity. I've no idea why that is and I can't see an obvious mathematical explanation at those rates. Could it be linked to the proportion of people who will never go to a doctor to be tested for anything? Asymptomatic percentage?