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

@MRex Yes I think you're right about frontline NHS workers that there pressure they are under right now is horrendous and anything we can do to alleviate that is useful. My closest friend is a nurse who's been redeployed to a Covid ward and I'm very aware she and her colleagues are really struggling

But they're already vaccinated, most of them. I don't think the argument that you need to vaccinate to avoid complete collapse of essential services is as strong for police, teachers, shopworkers, etc.

I think that's a strong argument for HCPs, care workers and others who work with the particularly vulnerable, @MRex - and I have absolutely no argument with their inclusion in phase 1 - but it starts to break down if you define 'key worker' any more broadly like that, and start using it to mean 'particularly useful to society'. I can also see an argument for groups whose occupation makes it particularly hard/impossible for them to socially distance (police, prison workers, etc). It's the extension of that into jobs that aren't inherently riskier but where you're just deciding that it matters more if they get ill that makes me highly uncomfortable. We don't ration healthcare on the basis of how valuable society thinks you are and I don't want us to start. I also think you replicate a lot of very hierarchical and potentially regressive power structures if you start defining value purely by employment in that way.

I do think it might have been better to do over 60s working outside the home before retired under 80s

Ha! So do I because that’s me. I teach. I also have a heart condition which is well controlled, but clotting is a risk and I really don’t want Covid.

There is a definite shifting the past few weeks re:vaccination priorities. It's interesting to see how public opinion changes when it's not hypothetical any more.
just observation, no judgement.

@Hardbackwriter - It's the extension of that into jobs that aren't inherently riskier but where you're just deciding that it matters more if they get ill that makes me highly uncomfortable. We don't ration healthcare on the basis of how valuable society thinks you are and I don't want us to start.
Yes, I agree. The main reason to consider food production, retail and manufacturing are the various additional covid risks. Meat plants have been amongst the worst places for infections for example. A secondary consideration might be availability of food.

Latest REaCT is out:

spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/85583/2/REACT1_r8a_final.pdf

It’s a bit concerning - seems to find levelling off and rates no longer dropping. Guess it raises the question was it actually Christmas that added to the measures and caused the drop ( with the natural closure of business during the period) and that current lockdown possibly not as effective to cause the rate to fall.

Guess we will find out in the next few weeks.

Does anyone know when the ons infection survey will be out? It is nearly a week late.

@littlestpogo

Latest REaCT is out:

spiral.imperial.ac.uk/bitstream/10044/1/85583/2/REACT1_r8a_final.pdf

It’s a bit concerning - seems to find levelling off and rates no longer dropping. Guess it raises the question was it actually Christmas that added to the measures and caused the drop ( with the natural closure of business during the period) and that current lockdown possibly not as effective to cause the rate to fall.

Guess we will find out in the next few weeks.

Why would this differ to current case numbers?

Zoe apparently does a bit but can’t remember why

@littlestpogo I came on here to post that too. It’s concerning and actually quite baffling as it seems to show exactly the opposite to what @littleowl1’s data showed over the last week - eg all regions falling but south west rising. Can anyone shed any light as to why this would be?

I suspect because like ONS it does random sampling - so it isn’t just relying on people having symptoms and then testing. This also means - like Zoe - the data is usually a bit ‘ahead’ of the official data from testing as it arguably picks up infections earlier as it’s random so will be getting positives from people before they develop symptoms ( and of course pick up asymptomatic)

Maybe clutching at straws here, but surely these tests would pick up positives from people who had not just got covid at that moment, but also had it in the preceding few weeks?

Just thinking out loud and this might be nonsense but, presumably they are using PCR tests and I have read that it’s fairly common - need to look up specifics - to still get a positive test after a month even once you have recovered (or less or more). Could they really just be finding a cumulative increase because of the lag time in PCR tests turning negative?

Cross post Msloverlover but that’s what occurred to me!

When I say random I obviously don’t mean totally random ( but compared to the official positive test data)

It's being reported on the news that the React study is showing cases still rising during lockdown. This is wrong. The React study's latest research comes from 6-15 January, and they are comparing it not to the peak but to their previous research period which was the 25 November to 3 December. This was way before peak, when reported cases were between around 10,000 and 18,000 a day. So it's no surprise that they're currently higher. They rise between this late November/early December period and the 6-15 January period, but that is not the same thing as saying they are currently rising , so does not mean that the other sources of data (reported cases and Zoe) are wrong, it's just that the React study - despite its name - is too slow and infrequent to accurately measure a sharp rise followed by a marked fall. Makes me cross that the BBC don't have journalists bright enough to figure this out, and that the academics publishing the study are so siloed that they don't provide this context in their summary and acknowledge the limitations of their study at the current time.

@ATieLikeRichardGere I like your thinking!

wlos.com/news/news-13-investigates/how-long-does-it-take-to-test-negative-after-testing-positive-for-covid-19

The doctor in this article said that you can still test 30-40% of people will still test positive 3 weeks later, but you can continue to be positive for weeks or months.

@Firefliess thank you so much for that. The Guardian article I read last night also made no mention of which data set it was comparing it to.

Firefliess

I’ve just had a quick glance, and looking at figures 1-3, to me it does look like cases are currently rising. Am I misinterpreting it (very possible )?
What bit are you looking at?

@Firefliess

It's being reported on the news that the React study is showing cases still rising during lockdown. This is wrong. The React study's latest research comes from 6-15 January, and they are comparing it not to the peak but to their previous research period which was the 25 November to 3 December. This was way before peak, when reported cases were between around 10,000 and 18,000 a day. So it's no surprise that they're currently higher. They rise between this late November/early December period and the 6-15 January period, but that is not the same thing as saying they are currently rising , so does not mean that the other sources of data (reported cases and Zoe) are wrong, it's just that the React study - despite its name - is too slow and infrequent to accurately measure a sharp rise followed by a marked fall. Makes me cross that the BBC don't have journalists bright enough to figure this out, and that the academics publishing the study are so siloed that they don't provide this context in their summary and acknowledge the limitations of their study at the current time.

Incredible. Thanks for this Annoying media don’t get it, damaging too

To be honest when you read the summary conclusion it is not surprising it is being misreported

On page 2 “ During the initial 10 days of the third COVID-19 lockdown in England in January 2021, prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 was very high with no evidence of decline.”

But on page 3 in the results section “Since there was a gap of over one month from the end of round 7b on 3rd December 2020 to beginning of round 8a on 6th January 2021 we may have missed a peak in prevalence during the intervening period”

Reported rates from PCR testing increased from 150/100,000 on 3 December to to 600/100,000 on 6 January ie a fourfold increase so not surprising that they found an increase in that time

@Firefliess - I need to read the actual study ( my bad!) but in the interview they definitely indicated they had taken into account the peak ( even though the last official publication was pre peak).

Either way it is only one study and should be seen in that context of course.

@ThePricklysheep -I'm looking at the data in the table in the annex. Cases were higher in the 6-15 Jan period compared to the 25 Nov- 3 Dec period, but what is wrong is to draw a straight line between these too periods and say it's going up, when we know from multiple other sources that rates in fact went up steeply in December, and then started falling in January.

The point about picking up people who've had Covid 2-3 weeks ago is also a potential issue with the latest sampling period which fell the week after the highest fortnight for cases that we've seen during the epidemic.

"may have missed a peak....." Understatement of the year, there! Yes you bloody well did didn't you?

@ceeveebee - you’ve read it for us . @Firefliess please ignore my question!

The radio 4 interview was very misleading ( and not by the interviewer) I have to say. So it really is that it’s risen from their last published data point.

Let’s hope others continue to show a drop ( although I have to say in my borough the fall now is very slow, and will be interesting to see the next 5 days ( whether it plateaus or does another big drop).

The for clever peeps on this thread. I just caught radio on it and it was depressing.