Data, Stats & Daily Numbers started 11th Jan

[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 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 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

@wintertravel1980

Based on the latest PHE report, the new UK strain is 30 to 50% more transmissible.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/950823/Variant_of_Concern_VOC_202012_01_Technical_Briefing_3_-_England.pdf

Both when using genomic sequence data directly and SGTF as a proxy, the secondary attack rates estimated from contact tracing data are observed to be higher if the index case has the variant strain, from around 11% to 15% of named contacts. This increase is around 10% to 70% across most age groups and regions where sufficient sequencing data is available. Using the SGTF proxy to give a more comprehensive overview the increase is consistently around 30% to 50%.

70% was the upper range of the initial estimate but it has been narrowed down after more detailed analysis.

I do not see how the 50% increase in transmissibility can result in R over 5. The number of 3.5 to 5 (and 5 would be stretching it) is probably a more realistic estimate.

This paper estimates R0 to have been 5.7 in China last January. With the revised upper limit of increased transmissibility then that gives us an R0 of 8.55 for the new strain.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7323562/

[quote Firefliess]@sirfred The testing numbers reported today are the tests carried out yesterday, so could be more postal tests carried out away from the weekend. I also wonder whether people might be doing more lateral flow tests in a Friday - a lot of workplaces have handed people loads on them to self administer as they like - would they maybe test themselves on a Friday before seeing any family, etc? (Ds gets free testing in his lab and generally does one the day before we're due to meet for a walk) [/quote]
I got my lateral flow tests this week, did the first yesterday. I don't think ours get reported as tests, nationally, as we don't submit the details online. So would not count in the numbers.

@LionLily

Just in case anyone's interested in how this might feed into the stats:- As care home staff I do two LFTs and one PCR a week, results of which are recorded In-house. From 16 Jan we will have to log onto government website and record, amongst other info, result of every LFT test on staff.

Ahh that's interesting, does the home report it rather than the individual staff member? I'll have to recheck our info, but we are only ask to report positive tests immediately.

@QueenStromba

I thought the R0 for measles was 12-18? Obviously the new variant's R0 is a lot higher than the old's but I think measles is still significantly more infectious.

@psychomath

I have a potentially stupid question - sorry if it's been asked already, I did a quick search of the thread but couldn't see it. The government dashboard has R estimated at 1.2-1.3 with an infection growth rate of +2 to +5% as of yesterday, but it also shows a clear (albeit small) downward trend in daily new cases since the start of the month. Am I missing something? How do you reconcile the two?

The R calculation is always based on data that's a couple of weeks old.

@psychomath I also have this question about how you have an R rate above one with a falling rate of growth of infections in England as a whole. I think it has to do with how they average the R rate across regions?

Or maybe what QueenStromba said. And Zoe has it at 0.9.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/news.sky.com/story/amp/covid-19-r-number-below-one-in-parts-of-england-study-suggests-12188378

ONS estimated before Christmas rates of 2000/100,000 for primary which was (I think) approx 8 times the rates shown from actual testing.

Yes, but as a result of the new variant! I have been clear that I was talking about my local area.

When schools closed for Christmas the virus was much less widespread in the community locally which meant far less spread within schools.

So you may say the heat map are rubbish, but I know my local area and the data is clear.

QueenStromba that makes sense, thanks.

...how you have an R rate above one with a falling rate of growth of infections in England as a whole.

Yes, official R estimates are based on a combination of lagging factors: deaths, hospital admissions and confirmed cases. They are about 2 weeks out of date.

@Wakeupin2022

ONS estimated before Christmas rates of 2000/100,000 for primary which was (I think) approx 8 times the rates shown from actual testing.

Yes, but as a result of the new variant! I have been clear that I was talking about my local area.

When schools closed for Christmas the virus was much less widespread in the community locally which meant far less spread within schools.

So you may say the heat map are rubbish, but I know my local area and the data is clear.

Woah. I was only pointing out that the reported positives for children is not that reliable. No need to be quite so aggressive

This thread has taken a very emotional turn in recent days. I come here for rational debate. Think I’ll step away for a while

Yes, official R estimates are based on a combination of lagging factors: deaths, hospital admissions and confirmed cases. They are about 2 weeks out of date

It would be so nice if this was made clear in the communication, it's obviously so (it would also be nice if they provided the analysis of previous accuracy)

Also you should actually look at growth rate, as it is possible for cases to be going down while R remains above 1, if the time between infections is going up (ie you still infect 2 other people but instead of doing it on day 1 of infectiousness you do it on day 7) This is unlikely to be much of a factor with covid of course (compared to thinks like HIV)

Thanks @QueenStromba, appreciate the link. That paper is at the highest end of estimates, CEBM put it at 2.63 from analysis of all the research: www.cebm.net/covid-19/when-will-it-be-over-an-introduction-to-viral-reproduction-numbers-r0-and-re/. The Italy strain that spread most In Europe was thought to have been slightly more contagious (20% maybe? that's the estimate in Thailand as it's only just arriving there now via Myanmar) and this variant higher again. It's a much more inexact science than I realised at the start of the pandemic, but the herd immunity threshold might give more info retrospectively.

No need to be quite so aggressive

I don't think I was being aggressive. Sorry if it took it that way.

My posts all made it clear that I was talking from a local perspective. And you rubbished my opinion.

My original post was actually a response to someone who referred to schools as Covid parties in December. That may be true in some areas, I was merely pointing out that it was not the case for all areas.

I neither referred to or rubbished your opinion

I provided a data point that demonstrated that one should not focus solely on reported cases when looking at the spread across age groups.

Sensitive much.

@ceeveebee

I neither referred to or rubbished your opinion

I provided a data point that demonstrated that one should not focus solely on reported cases when looking at the spread across age groups.

Sensitive much.

And I responded that case numbers in my area did not back up your claim that 2000/100000 children were asymptomatic.

That may be true for South East but UK is a big place.

Yes Sirfred at the time when everything seemed to be about the R (back in the summer?) I did wonder about the timescale point - I assume it makes a significant difference if A infects 1.6 people within a day on average or a week on average? But I only ever saw one (I think) commentator discussing that point - can't remember who it was.

I suppose you really need (R * time period) to establish what effect it will have on hospital admissions and capacity (the longer the period the more time for hospital discharges?) - and in any case R does seem to be based on past performance.

For R number, there are regional differences reported too (I don't think this is linked from the main page but perhaps should be): www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk#:~:text=The%20R%20number%20range%20for,as%20of%207%20August%202020.&text=The%20R%20number%20range%20for,as%20of%2031%20July%202020.
If there is a larger population in an R 0.9 area than R 1.1, then number of cases will reduce overall. It seems to specify that the estimates are based on several models, the hospitalisation being 3 weeks behind, surveys 1 week behind and current cases.

@ceeveebee

This thread has taken a very emotional turn in recent days. I come here for rational debate. Think I’ll step away for a while

@ceeveebee

Please don't. I value your input.

Zoe's estimated daily transmission rate continues to decrease rapidly - the number is down to 46,218 today from 49,813 yesterday (-7.2% in a single day). All regions are down with London showing the biggest drop.

Re official estimated R rates

Here is the history of reported numbers:

www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk#history

In August-September, these predictions only indicated real issues on September 4.

The R number range for the UK is 0.9-1.1 and the growth rate range is -1% to +2% per day as of 4 September 2020.

In reality positivity rates (and therefore cases) started going up steadily from August 24. Zoe was in fact the first source that indicated the issue back at the end of summer.

@wintertravel1980

Zoe's estimated daily transmission rate continues to decrease rapidly - the number is down to 46,218 today from 49,813 yesterday (-7.2% in a single day). All regions are down with London showing the biggest drop.

I think the next few days will be key here as it will take about two weeks for kids to catch it at school, incubate it, pass it on to their family asymptomatically or with non standard symptoms and for their family to develop symptoms and get tested.

I wonder also if Zoe would start to diverge in terms of direction - people who are concerned enough about covid to still be filling in their symptom questionnaire are probably more likely to be keeping their children home if it's at all possible.

Many of my colleagues use Zoe and they have still got their children as school (since they qualify as key workers).

My DD is in the nursery and I am also a Zoe user.

I do not know if Zoe is representative enough to estimate the accurate absolute numbers but it should provide a reasonable trend. I agree next few days will be important.