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

Tg

That would make sense for the south west for instance as Bristol was hit hard in the second peak and not so hard in beginning of the third peak. Being the only major city in the region, it must skew data quite considerably.

It’s still not a good thing that they’ve observed a possible increase from 6-15th jan though. The official cases reported in that time show a slight drop, looking at the seven day average figures. I appreciate that’s not comparing like with like.
But hopefully it’s only a small difference and we see cases continuing to drop.

There is a higher incidence of household infection with the new variant, I still feel fairly relaxed that it ties in with the dates we expected. If it continues next week, then no it's not good.

@Thepricklysheep They didn't observe an increase during the period 6-15 January. They took their swabs from their volunteers whenever they liked within this period and haven't attempted to look at whether the rates of Covid were higher or lower for those who did their swab at any particular time within this 9 day period. The comparison they're making is between the Covid rates found across this January round of taking swabs, and those in their their previous one which was 25 November to 3 December.

So those graphs should show a single point for 6-15th jan then? Not a sloping line which implies more toward the end than the beginning?

@Thepricklysheep Yes they certainly should. They should have used a bar chart IMO, not a line graph.

@TheSunIsStillShining

Sorry, poorly written. If vaccines are very limited first priority those most likely to catch eg HCWs, then those most likely to die.

Unlimited, can prioritise those most likely to die/suffer long Covid and still get to the rest of the population in a good time scale. I assumed unlimited to include unlimited resources to deliver.

Basically if limited perhaps prioritise those we need to keep going...a whole bag of worms ad I dislike value judgements. In a clumsy way I am attempting to balance ‘greatest good for most’ and ‘each individual’ in each circs. However, in the real world I do not support ‘life at all costs’.

[quote Firefliess]@Thepricklysheep Yes they certainly should. They should have used a bar chart IMO, not a line graph. [/quote]
Very good posts thanks

@ThePricklySheep I think from my super basic grasp of this is that they’ve applied a model to their data points which uses some assumptions about growth rates and then presents an interpretation based on those. If they had used a different model/set of assumptions it wouldn’t necessarily look like that. There was a Twitter discussion about use of splines in ONS data that seemed to make it always look like infections were falling at the end of their graph but, when revised with subsequent data, was often showing that the period that showed a fall at the end of the graph at one point, actually had not been falling after all. I imagine this could be the same in reverse. The more mathematically inclined feel free to correct me!

It is unfortunate that there has been no update from ONS over this time. Weekly or even fortnightly numbers would have been great from them

Actually, having looked in more detail they have kind of tried to look at change in rates within the 9-15 period. It's figure 1 in the report, but the drawing of the red line is shocking - the shaded area shows the confidence interval (the likely actual rates) and it would be entirely possible to draw a line going either up or down within the red area. I'm not able to add screenshots to b posts on MN (using phone app) but if someone can post the picture of the figure 1, people would be able to see what I mean. The researchers should not have attempted to draw a line of best fit with those confidence intervals, and we really need to do something about the lack of peer review process on papers that have such power to influence currently

REACT estimates/projections have turned out not entirely accurate at least twice so I would treat their modelling with caution.

I assume we will see the ONS update tomorrow. They might have missed a week but they have got reliable data from December to compare the latest numbers to.

With our current level of social connectedness, I wonder what the theoretical herd immunity threshold would be. I know it’s not simple - it depends who is immune, how immune they are, there is overshoot that would take place if achieved through infection, it will vary regionally, it will change as the season shifts to spring, and more, and obviously it goes up as soon as social connectedness increases again - but still, for our best current set of assumptions, has anyone seen a recent model?

@Firefliess

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

Just a bit!!!

I'm East of England and have been watching case numbers very closely in my area on @littleowl1's covidmessenger.com. They were basically a level trickle until 14th December, when they suddenly exploded. They are now dropping.

Admittedly, there's quite a lag in the data at covidmessenger. There's the 5 day delay in allocating cases to regions, and the 7 day rolling average smooths out fluctuations in the data but in itself introduces a lag. But, even allowing for that, the 25th Nov-3rd December period was before the explosion in cases.

Cases have pretty much halved here, but are still approx 400/100k, which is much much higher than the 80/100kish in the previous survey period.

Bad reporting.

Could I ask a favour from the GP (ex GP maybe?) who posted one or two threads ago, very helpfully explaining current death certificates?

I have lost a relative to Covid recently and am extremely puzzled by what's apparently been entered in section 1 and 2 in relation to Covid. If I could find her post it might throw light on it but I can't remember the username or which thread it was on. Began with a C maybe?

So I wondered if that person would mind PMing me her explanation(s) again, if she's still here.

Many thanks.

Also, that's quite shocking about the reporting of the React study!

Figure 1 as discussed above

That’s what I said about figure one!

Re the React study, I am also curious about the use of Facebook data that apparently proves lack of mobility. My argument would be that although people were not moving around much, many were in mixed household groups. They say that they can use this data because it a relationship between transmission and mobility was noted in Spring, but surely these were two very different periods. Everyone I knew was in their own household during spring lock down. This was not the case over Christmas.

I have noticed a general (well meaning) tendancy in the media (particularly Beeb) to put more weight on negative data stories. I understand it is all part of not letting people think the worst is over etc but it is also letting misleading or bad data tell an inaccurate or premature story. Also, we are not children. The report itself makes exactly that point re pressure on healthcare etc and does make me feel there is an agenda.

Or, they are completely correct and the data looks bad

We may not be children in here, I fear a large part of the population are, @Msloverlover

[quote ATieLikeRichardGere]@ThePricklySheep I think from my super basic grasp of this is that they’ve applied a model to their data points which uses some assumptions about growth rates and then presents an interpretation based on those. If they had used a different model/set of assumptions it wouldn’t necessarily look like that. There was a Twitter discussion about use of splines in ONS data that seemed to make it always look like infections were falling at the end of their graph but, when revised with subsequent data, was often showing that the period that showed a fall at the end of the graph at one point, actually had not been falling after all. I imagine this could be the same in reverse. The more mathematically inclined feel free to correct me![/quote]
I read all about thin plate splines on that discussion. Very interesting!

Thanks for the picture - yes that was the one I meant. You could draw a red line going up or down inside the pink shaded area by the most recent data (the one on the right) So they should not have tried to draw one at all and should instead have reported that their data show that cases in early January were higher than in late November but that the data is inconclusive on whether cases are currently going up or down.

Hello pricklysheep I’ve just come over here to discuss the REACT splines esp for jan and of course there is a parallel discussion going on here!

That other thread really shows how marginal data like these need to be handled with extreme care and not the diabolical way they’ve been reported this morning in the media!

According to Matt Hancock in the commons today, they will be publishing more granular data on vaccines as from today, by region and trust