Data, Stats & Daily Numbers started 28th 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

One point that will become apparent as the figures on how effective various vaccines are at preventing transmission start to be available, is the importance of the number of people who refuse vaccination.

Any Government overview on lifting lockdown, then lifting restrictions and getting the country back into recovery will be examining this closely.

The efficacy of any given vaccine is a fixed quantity, the effect on the rate of transmission is a fixed quantity and therefore the number/percentage of people vaccinated will become a focus because it alone can be changed. A small change here could bring about a significant change in the R number.

I would expect to see a very active drive now to persuade people to get vaccinated. I am wondering whether increased pressure will be brought on social media etc. disinformation. I also expect that Civil Service, Public and NHS workers will face employment sanctions if they do not get vaccinated, and others will face travel sanctions.

Having watched this board have a nationalistic meltdown over the recent EU actions, one thing that strikes me is that it may well have persuaded a good number of people who otherwise would have vaccine doubts for dubious irrational reasons, to get themselves vaccinated for equally dubious irrational reasons.

It is an ill wind and all that.

'Have the jab before Ursula von der Leyden gets her mitts on your vaccine'. [Not serious, joke, etc]

@Haffiana - the numbers who refuse vaccination only really becomes an issue in terms of transmission once we've vaccinated everyone who's willing. There's no need to fret about it until we've run out of the willing. But you're right, it will become an increasingly important issue in time, especially if we find that some vaccinated people not only catch it but also get very ill - something that's not yet clear.

@ancientgran I know what you mean but the age break down is very much in favour of over 70s getting vaccinated, so I am choosing to believe that most vaccines are going to the correct people. My daughter knows loads of young people who have had it but they are all HCP.
@Hardbackwriter I am also choosing to believe a gradual improvement rather than a summer of death. I can imagine being careful in the summer, but not needing to avoid all contact. Even I should have been vaccinated by then (46 and a teacher, so probably next whichever way they turn) And not statistically likely to die anyway. So who would the 1,000 a day be? (That is a rhetorical question, I assume in the model it is a percentage of the people left unvaccinated and who haven't had it, but I am not a mathematical thinker)
I am also assuming that the vaccines drag covid into the realms of serious disease we are used to, which I accept is still a range of outcomes but not one illness overwhelming the nhs with hospitalisations and death.

They're assuming that the vaccines are 90% effective at preventing serious illness (and so death) and so that rates would still be 10% of the situation with no vaccines even if everyone was vaccinated. Which is more pessimistic than any of the trial results, but then it is known that performance might be less good in the 'real world'.

@JanuaryChill

Easier to access report here altho still not clear whether he's totalling LFD and PCR tests or what.

I’d be interested to look in a bit more detail but at a fairly high level taking the 7 day periods to 8th, 15th and 22nd January the LF percentage of overall pillar tests in Essex, was

22% / 29% / 45%

And LFT positivity

3.7% / 1.6% / 1.2%

I don't want vaccine wasted so I'm not saying they shouldn't use it but I would like to know how many of the headline doses have actually gone to the groups 1 to 4

I'm sure I saw a chart recently that broke down vaccine take up by age and it showed that 80% of over 80s had been done at that point. Can't find it now though

[quote schimmelreiter]@ancientgran I know what you mean but the age break down is very much in favour of over 70s getting vaccinated, so I am choosing to believe that most vaccines are going to the correct people. My daughter knows loads of young people who have had it but they are all HCP.
@Hardbackwriter I am also choosing to believe a gradual improvement rather than a summer of death. I can imagine being careful in the summer, but not needing to avoid all contact. Even I should have been vaccinated by then (46 and a teacher, so probably next whichever way they turn) And not statistically likely to die anyway. So who would the 1,000 a day be? (That is a rhetorical question, I assume in the model it is a percentage of the people left unvaccinated and who haven't had it, but I am not a mathematical thinker)
I am also assuming that the vaccines drag covid into the realms of serious disease we are used to, which I accept is still a range of outcomes but not one illness overwhelming the nhs with hospitalisations and death.[/quote]
I think it is probable that the majority of doses have gone to the priority groups but with the current numbers it is touch and go that they will achieve their target by the 15th February even if all those doses have gone to the priority groups but I know they haven't all gone to the priority groups. I would just like to know how many have gone to the priority groups not just how many doses have been given. I can't find that information. They should be transparent about it and not just pick and choose which bits of information suit them.

@InterfectoremVulpes

I don't want vaccine wasted so I'm not saying they shouldn't use it but I would like to know how many of the headline doses have actually gone to the groups 1 to 4

I'm sure I saw a chart recently that broke down vaccine take up by age and it showed that 80% of over 80s had been done at that point. Can't find it now though

Yes that is the statistic they seem to like but what about the over 75s, the over 70s, the health care workers, the NHS workers, the care home residents, the ECV?

All those in groups 1-4 can book online for their vaccination. Some are refusing to do so because they won't accept that they don't need the physical letter in their hands to do so despite being told its not needed.

Yes that is the statistic they seem to like but what about the over 75s, the over 70s, the health care workers, the NHS workers, the care home residents, the ECV?

Given they are the only people eligible to have the vaccination they would take up the overwhelming majority of jabs given. The number of people not in those groups being given the spares or otherwise gaming the system would be no more than a couple of thousand. There really is no need to fret over them.

The more eligible people who get their appointments booked the quicker we can get this done.

@InterfectoremVulpes

All those in groups 1-4 can book online for their vaccination. Some are refusing to do so because they won't accept that they don't need the physical letter in their hands to do so despite being told its not needed.

But they're not being told that by anyone official as far as I've seen (v grateful for a link if they are!), and the website itself says not to do this without a letter. I think it's unfair to characterise that as 'refusing' or somehow being obstinate, it's following the instructions exactly as they're given at this present moment.

Yes, the note should say "Over 70s and previously shielding you can book, otherwise only try if you have a letter."

Really interesting thread on excess deaths and the effect of lockdown using ONS and Sage reports.

To summarise it looks like there was a lot of undiagnoised covid in April that looked a lot like dementia (no surprises here), it will take take to see the full effect of delayed treated and how that affects deaths (indirect deaths) - Sage is currently estimating this to be around 8,600 excess deaths due to disruption to elective surgery and 1,400 due to delays to cancer treatment and diagnosis over the course of the next couple of years, but the direct effect of lockdown has saved lives with 4,000 less non-covid deaths (variety of reasons - fewer accidents, better air quality, reduction in other infectious diseases etc).

It dispells quite a lot of the lockdown skeptic arguments in a very clear, data supported way.

twitter.com/_johnbye/status/1355842954204688388
REALLY worth a read.

@InterfectoremVulpes
The official guidance is to wait for a letter.

I've only seen messages not to on Mumsnet.

Not saying anyone shouldn't use the link, but it's not a case of people refusing to use it. It's people following the official guidance.

Would also be happy to be proved wrong if you can share official info the contrary.

@MRex

Yes, the note should say "Over 70s and previously shielding you can book, otherwise only try if you have a letter."

Hopefully they will update the page soon!

@ancientgran appreciate it’s not really the data you want as it’s from NI, so not covering England or the rest of U.K., but this is quite promising in terms of distribution - 83% of over 80s, all care homes have had first doses and 80% of care homes have had second doses and almost 40K 65-69s have booked their appointment for vaccines at mass vaccine centres (which was only opened to this age group after the HSC workers, opticians, dentists etc. had been vaccinated)

www.health-ni.gov.uk/news/nis-vaccine-numbers-climb-past-220000

@RedToothBrush
Really interesting data there. If I did Twitter, I'd follow him!

Surely the other big factor going forward is that however much the vaccinated are told not to change their behaviour re SD etc one little bit, they will?

There's been lots of anecdotal evidence of this, and tbh, if I imagine how I will feel after being vaccinated, I would be just that little bit more inclined to 'take chances' - not big ones, but if there were other pressing reasons to, eg, hug a friend in need or whatever, I might well do it, whereas now I wouldn't. It makes you think.

Because we're all driven by self interest to an extent.

(And I'm a massive rule-follower, both in general and esp in the current situation)

So, I mean the effect of some vaccinated people completely abandoning SD, and many more thinking "Oh well I'm not personally at risk any more so it is 'OK' to do X this one time..."

Writing this down has helped me prepare for when I have those thoughts (not that I'm going to be due a jab for months and months anyway)!

[quote Firefliess]@Haffiana - the numbers who refuse vaccination only really becomes an issue in terms of transmission once we've vaccinated everyone who's willing. There's no need to fret about it until we've run out of the willing. But you're right, it will become an increasingly important issue in time, especially if we find that some vaccinated people not only catch it but also get very ill - something that's not yet clear. [/quote]
@Firefliess No half-sane government will wait until we have run out of the willing and THEN turn their attention to the unvaccinated unwilling. It is an important issue that needs tackling right now. I expect Government messaging on the matter to start shortly.

A vaccinated person with mild symptoms from CV may not need NHS resources but they are:

a/ an infection risk and must isolate
b/ not able to work. This will be costing someone.

Because vaccine efficacy is not 100%, because vaccinated transmission will not be 0%, then even a small change in the unvaccinated population can make a substantial difference to whether for example, we need to keep social distancing on public transport (and paying for that).

It is not just an issue of public health, but of economic strategy. If enough people are not vaccinated it will affect the whole population.

It is not just an issue of public health, but of economic strategy. If enough people are not vaccinated it will affect the whole population

I don't get this argument, as that argument is not made for the influenza vaccines, and influenza is typically more dangerous in the covid "non-vulnerable" groups. So why do believe it's so important for covid?

@InterfectoremVulpes

Yes that is the statistic they seem to like but what about the over 75s, the over 70s, the health care workers, the NHS workers, the care home residents, the ECV?

Given they are the only people eligible to have the vaccination they would take up the overwhelming majority of jabs given. The number of people not in those groups being given the spares or otherwise gaming the system would be no more than a couple of thousand. There really is no need to fret over them.

The more eligible people who get their appointments booked the quicker we can get this done.

How do you know it is only a couple of thousand? I have no idea how many it is but I know there was an upset in Birmingham when 300 people got the vaccine in a hospital, one an MP who said he just joined the queue, when front line staff in that hospital hadn't got it.

So if there are 300 in one hospital, plus other groups being called in at the last minute, however much you support vaccine not being wasted, plus people like the lady of 60 I know with no health issues then I can easily see it being far more than a couple of thousand. The big question is how many more? If you look at the number of doses still needed by the 15th February it is going to be close, if many of the doses have gone to other groups they might well hit the 15 million but they might not cover everyone in groups 1 to 4.

I might be a cynic but they seem to be focusing much more on the 15 million that the actual groups now which just makes me wonder.

@JanuaryChill

Surely the other big factor going forward is that however much the vaccinated are told not to change their behaviour re SD etc one little bit, they will?

There's been lots of anecdotal evidence of this, and tbh, if I imagine how I will feel after being vaccinated, I would be just that little bit more inclined to 'take chances' - not big ones, but if there were other pressing reasons to, eg, hug a friend in need or whatever, I might well do it, whereas now I wouldn't. It makes you think.

Because we're all driven by self interest to an extent.

(And I'm a massive rule-follower, both in general and esp in the current situation)

I can see your point, as I said earlier if my husband is vaccinated I will feel more confident about going into a shop occasionally. It won't stop me social distancing, wearing a mask or washing my hands but yes I will probably feel more confident about going out. I suppose that might be a bit different as someone of my age (68) and health (good) would probably feel OK about a quick trip to a shop now but I don't not because of me but because of him if that makes sense.

I've just read the Warwick modelling paper. Disclaimer - it's not my professional area, but it's also not a million miles away. Most of the assumptions it makes look pretty reasonable to me and I read it with an increasing sinking feeling that it's probably correct. BUT, then near the end they point out a couple of things that they were not able to take into account because sensible data are not yet available. So, they say: "we have assumed that efficacy against disease applies equally across the entire spectrum of disease, however if the vaccine has differential protection against the most severe disease this will impact our predictions for hospital admissions and deaths." Can someone help me translate this? I'm taking it to mean that the model assumes that if you are one of the 10% of people (their best guess) that the vaccine doesn't 'work' for, then it won't work at all for you. If this is what they meant, then surely this is introducing a potential massive flaw in the model? My understanding is that if you are one of the unlucky ones, your vaccine might not stop you getting ill, but it WILL stop you getting seriously ill and needing hospital. One of the immunologists that I follow on Twitter says that this is (on currently available data) true for all of the vaccines that have announced Phase 3 trial data. If I've understood correctly, this means the model is likely to be quite pessimistic.
Next, however, the paper says: "we expect efficacy to vary with age and between risk groups; incorporating such heterogeneity into models is key for more robust predictions." So, it's clear that the model expects the vaccine to work equally well for an 85-year old diabetic and a healthy 20-year old. This seems very unlikely to be the case and seems likely that it will push to model into 'over-optimistic' territory.
Maybe the two cancel each other out?
Anyway, I feel better for having read it and having realised that, in truth, they haven't got a clue - we may need to be in hard lockdown for months, or we may not at all.