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

I don't think so @sirfredfredgeorge, only because DH was included last year (negative) and then didn't get sent another.

I'm not sure that's better, recruiting an entirely different set of representative cross-section every 2 weeks? And actually thinking about it, increases in false negatives is still susceptible anyway and just even harder to control for as you can't match people who tested positive in previous runs.

[quote MRex]@icesnowrain - lateral flow tests are verified by PCR test, so it's effectively irrelevant.
Look - issues with Innova discussion, it's all about false negative not false positive "Covid-19: People are not being warned about pitfalls of mass testing | The BMJ" www.bmj.com/content/372/bmj.n238.[/quote]
Thanks 🙏

Also doesn't higher viral load imply more dead virus hanging around thus increasing the prevalence? (btw I'm not remotely doubting the increase in cases, just looking for differences between positive tests of likely cases with symptoms and surveillance groups)

Here we are, Full Fact on LFTs

These tests, made by Innovaa^, return very few false positives. 99.68% of people who did not have the virus received a negative test result. In other words, very few people who do not have the virus which causes Covid-19 will be told wrongly that they do have it, after doing a lateral flow test.
fullfact.org/health/lateral-flow-test/

So to test 'falsely' positive three times seems very odd tbh.

My son is a TA working with autistic children in Newham .His Academy run primary school are giving out LF tests to be self administered* once a week .

And the advice that a positive test is to be assumed to be a false positive and a negative test assumed to be accurate !

I can hardly believe it .

*and I note from my reading that the accuracy decreases when self administered by a lay person .

Phase 4 evaluation
^A further series of individuals were recruited from consecutive cases from COVID19 Testing centres with tests performed by self-trained individuals and the results were compared to the Phase 3b shown above. Performance was optimal when the LFD was used by laboratory scientists (156/197 LFDs positive [79.2%, 95% CI: 72.8-84.6%])] versus trained healthcare-workers (92/126 LFDs positive [73.0%, 95% CI: 64.3 80.5%]) and self-trained members of the public given a protocol (214/372 LFDs positive [57.5%, 95 CI:52.362.6%];p

Has that advice been given in writing @peridito ??

I'll ask him ,I doubt it .It all seems v casual and word of mouth .

If the advice isn't in writing then we have person A says to person B who says to person C (@peridito)... There is a risk it's chinese whispers here about what person A has actually said. If it isn't then the document needs to be surfaced up and sent to DofE / PHE to correct the school about the process.

Fair point and one I'd reached myself ..Slight caveat that I personally know one of the A,B and C people and c an form an opinion on their processing and reporting skills.

Also know details of how school has implemented Covid precautions to date .

I think @peridoto's DS is kind of right - my understanding of the way lateral flow tests are being used in schools on asymptomatic people is that if they are positive a PCR test is then taken to confirm it (but the teacher/student should isolate while waiting for the result), and that a negative test requires no action - ie assumed to be correct, unless the person has any symptoms, in which case they take a PCR est as anyone else would. So what the lateral flow tests are doing is essentially routing extra asymptomatic people into getting PCR tests. This will help keep more infectious people out of schools. It is absolutely not about encouraging anyone to go into schools while possibly positive. (They have scrapped the idea the had before Christmas of allowing students to go to school if they'd been a close contact of a Covid case via daily lateral flow tests)

But surely it's the 'assumed' bit - someone assuming their positive result is incorrect is unlikely to isolate properly pending PCR test result, which may take several days: someone with a negative result will probably more confidently assume they haven't got Covid, when they might have!

I very much doubt that the staff were actually told to "assume it's wrong". I think that's most likely someone's interpretation of the fact that they're being told to get a positive lateral flow test confirmed with a PCR test.

I work in a school and we are doing twice weekly lateral flow. There absolutely is NOT advice to assume a positive is a false positive. It’s very clear that if you test positive, you submit your result online to test and trace via a link and book a PCR test to check. You do not attend school.

See Germany have blocked AZ vaccine for 65+

@Firefliess

I very much doubt that the staff were actually told to "assume it's wrong". I think that's most likely someone's interpretation of the fact that they're being told to get a positive lateral flow test confirmed with a PCR test.

Yes you're probably right, but worrying if anyone's interpreted that as "assume".

World at One had someone representing care homes saying they've had numerous patients discharged from hospital ostensibly with a negative test who've gone on to test positive and sees an outbreak in the home.

@ATieLikeRichardGere

See Germany have blocked AZ vaccine for 65+

Fine. The EU doesn't in fact need it then, does it!

@Firefliess

I think *@peridoto*'s DS is kind of right - my understanding of the way lateral flow tests are being used in schools on asymptomatic people is that if they are positive a PCR test is then taken to confirm it (but the teacher/student should isolate while waiting for the result), and that a negative test requires no action - ie assumed to be correct, unless the person has any symptoms, in which case they take a PCR est as anyone else would. So what the lateral flow tests are doing is essentially routing extra asymptomatic people into getting PCR tests. This will help keep more infectious people out of schools. It is absolutely not about encouraging anyone to go into schools while possibly positive. (They have scrapped the idea the had before Christmas of allowing students to go to school if they'd been a close contact of a Covid case via daily lateral flow tests)

This is correct. I was involved in a school which have been doing these tests since Sept. A positive meant child isolated then had a PCR. If PCR was negative back to school. Every PCR came back as positive and then we tested close contacts every day for 7 days (except at week ends where they could go where they pleased) this resulted in a massive local outbreak.

Haha well that’s exactly what I said. The timing of all this, and the “raid” on the AZ Belgian plant is really like something from fiction.

I can see the argument both ways. There isn’t sufficient data in the over 65s on the one hand, but on the other it seems ludicrous to suggest, given what we do know, that the efficacy is going to suddenly drop off a cliff in this age band. Meanwhile, this is the group that needs protection most.

@BigWoollyJumpers
You do get that in the UK they are using it freely in 65+ population, right?
Meaning that we have no more data than anyone else and yet in this country's officials have their fingers crossed and "let's hope for the best" attitude.
I understand that this gov wants to be world beating and shout vaccined ppl numbers, but it's just simply stupid. And for this purpose they are deliberately:

• going against manufacturer and trial/research data
• simply go against available data - or lack of it.

Why do they have this urge to fuck it up again and again....
Wish I lived in Israel right now - they are starting to vacc 35+ ppl and they have approved it for 16 yr olds.
I'm just slightly put off by the occasional bombs, riots, violence,... and not having anyone proven jewish in my family :)

@ATieLikeRichardGere

Haha well that’s exactly what I said. The timing of all this, and the “raid” on the AZ Belgian plant is really like something from fiction.

I can see the argument both ways. There isn’t sufficient data in the over 65s on the one hand, but on the other it seems ludicrous to suggest, given what we do know, that the efficacy is going to suddenly drop off a cliff in this age band. Meanwhile, this is the group that needs protection most.

Completely agree with all points The first one - is like the leading scenes of a film

@ATieLikeRichardGere
potentially fair point, but it also could be that we are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So far there could have been many more other measures taken. And even at this point just giving one dose of a vacc to a small % of the population (compared to we need min 70%? for herd immunity) will actually not help in general. It's just a band aid to stop deaths in the very old population, but not hospitalization in the younger (below pensioner) population.

Re: the eu investigation part: we don't see the contracts, so it's pure spekuloos and he said/she said. Personally, I'll wait for a bit more info before I pass judgement on either side. Atm it's just emotions, few hard facts.

@TheSun The Oxford vaccine was found to be equally effective in all age groups and was approved in the UK for over 18s. The UK government is not going against any manufacturers guidance in recommending it for all over 18s, including over 65s. The German government, meanwhile, looks like failing to get hold of much of it anyway, so can decide to approve it for whoever it likes.

[quote TheSunIsStillShining]@BigWoollyJumpers
You do get that in the UK they are using it freely in 65+ population, right?
Meaning that we have no more data than anyone else and yet in this country's officials have their fingers crossed and "let's hope for the best" attitude.
I understand that this gov wants to be world beating and shout vaccined ppl numbers, but it's just simply stupid. And for this purpose they are deliberately:

• going against manufacturer and trial/research data
• simply go against available data - or lack of it.

Why do they have this urge to fuck it up again and again....
Wish I lived in Israel right now - they are starting to vacc 35+ ppl and they have approved it for 16 yr olds.
I'm just slightly put off by the occasional bombs, riots, violence,... and not having anyone proven jewish in my family :)[/quote]
Yes, I do get that.
Yes, I do know plenty of people working on the Oxford vaccine, and others.
Yes, I do trust that they have the population of the Uk (and of the wider third world) at their risk. They are not setting out to harm or hinder.
Yes, I do accept that nothings fully proven, but we are in a pandemic, and the population is essentially in further trials.
There is sufficient "other" data for similar vaccines, and vaccine response, to indicate that there is no reason to believe it doesn't act like other vaccines in circulation.

There was antibody evidence from the earlier trials that there was no difference. It shouldn't be long before the early MHRA efficacy reports, can't wait!