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

@lucyposting

Ealing includes Southall and Wembley which may have more deprivation and crowded/inter-generational living than other boroughs in London. Similarly if you look at Slough and neighbouring Windsor & Maidenhead, two very different stories.

Yes. However, so do many other London Boroughs, and to a greater extent.

Eg Barking & Dagenham, Hackney, Tower Hamlets etc etc.

ie yes they're good for detecting infections in folk who otherwise wouldn't be tested, however if some of the negatives actually have enough symptoms /have symptoms at some point which should be tested by the more reliable PCR tests, a percentage will never be detected.

Whether that's a higher percentage than the ones that would have never been detected at all without LFD, who knows....

@JanuaryChill

ie yes they're good for detecting infections in folk who otherwise wouldn't be tested, however if some of the negatives actually have enough symptoms /have symptoms at some point which should be tested by the more reliable PCR tests, a percentage will never be detected.

Whether that's a higher percentage than the ones that would have never been detected at all without LFD, who knows....

Surely that would be a small percentage though and might even be beneficial? If someone has symptoms but not the top 3, they wouldn’t usually have a test. If those people are now having lateral flow tests then it should actually be picking up more cases then it would have done.

Haffiana, I agree but there is also possibly the factor of age, perhaps there are older populations in those pockets of deprivation (more established communities? A similar issue to Slough possibly). I found these interesting maps of deprivation (which don't look at age however).

data.london.gov.uk/blog/indices-of-deprivation-2019-initial-analysis/

With LFTs - if someone is having symptoms or mild symptoms, and is not diligent enough to go for/get a PCR test delivered are they more likely to get a LFT? I don’t think so, but there is a chance with their wider roll out that these people will be encompassed by a workplace LFT scheme and potentially picked up that way. I can’t see an incentive to get a LFT that isn’t there for a PCR test, I.e. if someone is in insecure work there is an incentive not to get a PCR test and not to isolate to limit lost earnings/difficulties at work, but I don’t see that there would be higher incentive to get LFT as the outcomes to earnings etc. with a positive would be the same. But I’m maybe missing something because I’m very strongly in the camp of test as many people as possible as regularly as possible, even if that means testing those least likely to have covid with something we may deem less accurate.

The table of daily cases in every council in England has been updated with today's data release on the www.covidmessenger.com homepage.

I also update the three hospitals data pages with the latest NHS data for each region in England this morning.

Some quite dramatic falls in daily admissions and total cases in hospital in many regions.

Daily hospital admissions:
www.covidmessenger.com/hospital-admissions/

Cases in hospital:
www.covidmessenger.com/hospital-cases/

Patients in ventilation beds:
www.covidmessenger.com/hospital-ventilation/

Sorry for all the typos above. Butter fingers this eve!

@lurker101 I suppose ai'm thinking more of people who wouldn't have got a PCR test but get a LFT either because it's mandated at work/school or someone drags them along to mass community testing.

Sorry I'm tired and am not sure what I'm saying really... Hopefully someone will be along shortly to sort me out!

@littleowl1 have you now moved to a 4 day spec date lag with your most recent 7 day period being 28th Jan?

With the speed test results seem to be coming through that seems a reasonable change - so I’m with you on that. The dashboard continues to use five days. So the map for example is still based, today at least, on the last seven days being to 27th January spec date.

@JanuaryChill I think I follow you, in that case a positive result from a LFT would be good because they may then isolate/do PCR test/contact tracing etc. But if it’s a false negative we’re not really in any worse situation as they had no intention of testing anyway, if that makes sense? We would have one less recorded case, but if they wouldn’t have tested/isolated otherwise then there’s no additional spread risk in my view solely from that false negative result. The risk with false negatives LFTs in my view is if they encourage people to do things they wouldn’t have otherwise done I.e. LFT at work is negative, so someone goes round to their 85 yo mum’s house for dinner, and that’s why I’m a bit dubious about their use for care home visitors, but it’s tough to balance

But a false negative LFT for someone that was never planning to get a PCR test and is going to work, supermarkets etc.which they would have done anyway without the LFT is in no worse position, because they’re still doing everything they would have done had their friend/workplace not tested them

In terms of spec dates in England:

Wednesday 27th just 77 more added today, total now 23092 as compared with 31790 the previous Wednesday.

Thursday 28th 513 cases added today taking total at reporting day 4 to 21334. This time last week we had 28077 for Thursday 21st

Friday 29th 2574 cases added taking total so far to 18430. Equiv position last week was 25606

Saturday 30th 10333 cases added taking total after two days to 12658, as compared with equivalent position this time last week of 16206.

With LFTs - if someone is having symptoms or mild symptoms, and is not diligent enough to go for/get a PCR test delivered are they more likely to get a LFT?

Anecdotally I know people who have - the thing is it removes the 'risk' of needing to isolate for several days while waiting for results just to then find out that you're negative, which is a massive disincentive to many people.

Hmmm good point @Hardbackwriter I knew I was probably missing something

Courtesy of Twitter @bristoliver...
Amongst the less happy news on the s African variant, clear signs that the vaccine is accelerating the rate of reduction of cases in the Elderly.

@boys3

I am super impressed with how quickly you spotted that change!!

And yes, I have been monitoring the total cases daily vs the "final count" and the speed of turnaround last few weeks has been remarkable - well over 95% within 4 days.

On an anecdotal observation - our local testing site (about 20 miles away): Early Dec a Saturday swab was returned 36 hrs later (DD had a test). Last Sat, DH had a test and result was back in under 11 hrs.

These were both PCR, not lateral flow.

Thankfully both were false alarms.
But big timing difference.

Our testing infrastructure (IMO) is the best in Europe by a mile.

[quote boys3]**@littleowl1 have you now moved to a 4 day spec date lag with your most recent 7 day period being 28th Jan?

With the speed test results seem to be coming through that seems a reasonable change - so I’m with you on that. The dashboard continues to use five days. So the map for example is still based, today at least, on the last seven days being to 27th January spec date.[/quote]
I was just wondering the same @littleowl1 following the massive drop down the list my Borough appears to have had.

Results are coming through more quickly but there always do seem to be a few to add to previous days so i'm on the fence about four days behind rather than five days.

@littleowl1 any chance the gov dashboard might make the move to 4 days do you think?

On the lag point the latest 7 day average based on spec dates reported each day is 97% fall within days 1 to 4, with this just 1% higher if you go to 5 days.

That 6 day figure will have been pulled down by 29th jan with a daily percentage of 96.0% for days 1 to 4 spec dates, however the 5 day lag that day would have only increased cover to 96.5% because the slight catch up that day was for spec dates at least 18 days old.

An eye does need to be kept on it, but the data looks to validate the move.

The latest seven day cases average in England is 22591, the closest previous date to that is 16th December at 23052.

It took 19 days to go from that December figure to the peak of 54722 on 4th jan and 24 days to get back to that level.

Bearing in mind that we were still at a seven day average of 53035 on 8th jan. So we’ve taken 20 days to get back to that equivalent December level since then.

@boys3 gosh, who knows!

I don't use them as a benchmark TBH.

Their lag has been totally wrong for at least half of the pandemic which results in data getting misreported (usually under-reported) across the mainstream media. It drove me totally nuts in 2H-21.

I actually contacted them when the latest dashboard was released< i think early Autumn time. At the time their lag was 3 days which was totally misrepresenting the data - only about 60% of positive cases were reported after 3 days. And they'd been reporting it as such for months.

In fairness, they did change it very quickly after I pointed out the error.

I sense they probably have their hands full and I just don't think they are analysing the data on a daily basis. They publish it - yes - but they don't monitor and analyse it for lags that well.

But it's worrying that people (mainly women, I might add!) on this thread can spot things which the people being paid and trained to do, don't seem to!

I wonder if any country is doing "effectiveness" studies, as in how long do people live after being vaccinated... Specifically as almost all countries are focusing on the super old and going downward from there.

With LFTs - if someone is having symptoms or mild symptoms, and is not diligent enough to go for/get a PCR test delivered are they more likely to get a LFT?

Some people are confused about the different types of test centres, too. Anecdotally, there have been posts in my local area Facebook group from people with symptoms asking where they can get a test and lots of others pointing them in the direction of the local walk in centres (which are actually both LFT centres for asymptomatic people).

Are people asked about symptoms when they attend the test centre I wonder?

@nordica that’s worrying, they are - I went for LFT in my Borough, and before you’re allowed in they ask you to read the sign on the wall listing symptoms and confirm whether you have any or have had any in the last few days. They then take your temperature before checking you in, so hopefully if someone went to the wrong centre (and told the truth) they would be redirected

No idea how the LFT centres work. You'd hope so, wouldn't you?