Data, Stats & Daily Numbers started 20th Jan

[TheSunIsStillShining]

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

ATieLikeRichardGere yikes to the University of Exeter thinking it's 1.9. Let's hope they're wrong.

Also in table format here:
mobile.twitter.com/theosanderson/status/1352682300601982978

@Layladylay234 - no idea, just speculating, but could it be a higher proportion of deaths at home from covid causing silent hypoxia, heart attacks and strokes?

Glad I wasn't only one who didn't understand what Patrick Vallance said

@Layladylay234

I understood it as once in hospital, outcomes are the same.

But- if the death rate is higher, then more chance of ending up in hospital in the first place?

So some estimates are showing lower lethality??

People on the Kurcharski twitter thread making the point about hospital pressures possibly leading to increased mortality.

If anyone else has a different understanding which is better for the NHS and public health than mine, I will be very happy to discover I’m wrong.

Just to interject with some optimism

This isn't much clearer either, have read the first sentence a few times and still not sure exactly what it means?

^The briefing also says that the increase in deaths is a result of more individuals becoming severely infected becoming hospitalised, rather than more hospitalisations resulting in death. As such, it would appear that the new variant is also responsible of the increased, unexpectedly high burdens in hospitals seen especially around London. Thus while the recent results showing declining case numbers is good news, and suggest that the variant is controllable via existing measures, these results on deaths imply that burden in hospitals will continue to be high requiring a more prolonged period of restrictions.”
From:
www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-suggestion-made-in-downing-street-press-conference-that-the-new-uk-variant-may-be-linked-to-higher-mortality-than-the-old-variant-nervtag-paper-also-now-published/

I think it means the increase is not related to overstretched NHS/ increased pressures??

Rather worrying too (from another response on above link, the one by Prof Paul Hunter, Professor in Medicine, The Norwich School of Medicine, University of East Anglia) that he "gives more weight to the PHE Retrospective matched cohort study" as that one gives a figure of a 65% increase...

My understanding was as @TeaInTheGarden

It's confusing because before Xmas they were saying that the new variant was NOT more lethal just more transmissible.

Also, they've been saying that hospital levels are higher than the first wave, but that it is estimated that the total number of infections was higher in the first wave.... none of it seems to add up. I don't really mind that - in a new pandemic there will always be a lot of unknowns - as long as they're honest about the unknowns, but I simply don't trust them to be any more.

Many reports from frontline workers are saying that it's worse than the first wave and that they're seeing a lot more younger adults very sick (which they didn't see last time). Whilst I appreciate the desire for hard data, I think what happened with teachers shows that we disregard the frontline experiences of professionals at our peril.

@IloveJKRowling

It's confusing because before Xmas they were saying that the new variant was NOT more lethal just more transmissible.

Also, they've been saying that hospital levels are higher than the first wave, but that it is estimated that the total number of infections was higher in the first wave.... none of it seems to add up. I don't really mind that - in a new pandemic there will always be a lot of unknowns - as long as they're honest about the unknowns, but I simply don't trust them to be any more.

Many reports from frontline workers are saying that it's worse than the first wave and that they're seeing a lot more younger adults very sick (which they didn't see last time). Whilst I appreciate the desire for hard data, I think what happened with teachers shows that we disregard the frontline experiences of professionals at our peril.

The best place to look is ICNARC report for ICU

It won’t be misleading and very detailed.

I think it’s great to take the experiences of front line professionals and then use those ideas to explore data, but they can’t replace the data. We’ve seen misleading frontline reports as well. It’s a difficult balancing act.

[quote TeaInTheGarden]@Layladylay234

I understood it as once in hospital, outcomes are the same.

But- if the death rate is higher, then more chance of ending up in hospital in the first place?[/quote]
That's how I understand it too, though I agree it's really unclear.

If the Guardian article is right:

"Almost half the population is unclear what “antigen” or “epidemiologist” mean, while two in five admit they would struggle to explain “circuit breaker” or “flatten the curve”.

Significant numbers also could not explain, either confidently or at all, what a “support bubble” is, what “stay alert” means and what someone being “asymptomatic” involves."

Then we are in way more shit than I thought. These are not hard words/concepts to get.

Ok, I'd struggle with stay alert as well as would all of us here probably.

The 30% increase has so far been observed for CFR (case fatality rate) rather than IFR (infection fatality rate).

Another question to consider is how confident we are that we are identifying all cases. I was surprised by the weekly ONS survey released earlier today. It seemed that while the levels of infections are indeed dropping, the reduction might be slower than what gets reflected in the actual case count or is projected by Zoe.

If the new variant is associated with slightly different symptoms, our case count might be underestimated. This would lead to the increase in CFR (deaths over known cases).

TeaInTheGarden

“I understood it as once in hospital, outcomes are the same.

But- if the death rate is higher, then more chance of ending up in hospital in the first place?”

Me too.

I also think that’s what the bit coffeeand croissants quoted is saying.

I think it’s great to take the experiences of front line professionals and then use those ideas to explore data, but they can’t replace the data. We’ve seen misleading frontline reports as well. It’s a difficult balancing act.

Yes, agreed. At least with medics they seem more inclined to actually investigate data gaps and take frontline experiences seriously. The same cannot be said to be true of teachers.

We’re definitely not identifying all cases. We’ve always known that. That’s why ONS surveys always show such a lot more people are infected than the daily cases. We know ~1/3 are asymptomatic (at least of old variant).

We’re definitely not identifying all cases. We’ve always known that.

Yes, you are right, I should have worded my question differently - how confident are we that we are identifying the same proportion of cases as we were for the old variant?

The latest ONS survey seems to suggest we might be now missing more cases that previously (perhaps because symptoms have changed or because more infections are now asymptomatic/mildly symptomatic).

The new variant may find it more easy to get into cells than the old variant, he says.”

Which is what everythingthatthelight said a few weeks ago; it seems to be better at attaching to ace receptor cells.

Which makes sense from an evolving POV, more able to get into hosts to replicate means more likely to be passed on.

The briefing also says that the increase in deaths is a result of more individuals becoming severely infected becoming hospitalised, rather than more hospitalisations resulting in death

Ok this I get

There are a few ways that caution is needed over randomised testing and identification of asymptomatic cases:

1. Tests can show up someone who was infected weeks ago but is still shedding virus
2. Asymptomatic is logged for not having the 3 main symptoms cough, fever, change in smell/ taste; this doesn't mean people have no symptoms of illness at all
3. Asymptomatic is self-reported, some people say they have no symptoms because "it's just a little cough, it's my asthma / cold weather / allergies...".

Of course we aren't catching every case, blatantly, we'd be able to get on top of the damn virus if we could. Just advising caution with how much weight is attached to "asymptomatic" identification.

@wintertravel1980 could the ONS decrease not be as sharp as it’s a week or 2 out of date, and therefore catching the end of the plateau and start of the decrease?
If so then next week should show a steeper decrease. Hoping so!