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

The table Whitty showed was not "places caught" but "places people infected reported visiting in the previous three (?) days". Very different, especially as self reported.

And as a high proportion of transmission events take place at home, you don't need to have gone anywhere, unless you live alone!

They don't know how many people catch it at the supermarket. The data that Chris Whitty has been showing is from test and trace and shows the places that people say they have been, or where the app records them having been before they test positive. The supermarket is obviously a common place people have been. Doesn't tell you whether they actually caught it there though, or instead from the friend they stopped to talk to in the way back, someone in their household without symptoms, or many other individual places people go.

I do think illicit socialising plays a part too. My neighbour has just got out of hospital with Covid that she almost certainly caught via her teenage DD who she's been allowing to have friends round for small parties. (I know this because my DD tells me and shows me pictures on social media). My mum's neighbours (healthy pensioners with few reasons for legitimate contact) also caught Covid, and were widely known to have been having friends over. So I do think it plays a part. How big a part I don't think we'll ever really be able to measure.

Will be really interesting when there are retrospective studies published on specific local areas (the ones who are consistently reporting high rates throughout... ive found covidmessenger is great for tracking that). What factors contribute to high cases. How they interact in different demographics areas and the common denominator(s) to all.

I still don't think existing data is pointing to mass 'tiny acts of non compliance' and revert to my (untested and perhaps opinion) in my OP. Epidemiologists must be on this as we speak. If I find anything reported I'll certainly share.

There will be as many answers as there are people. I posted about 2 households I know, one caught it at the supermarket and one at the shopping centre. 2 in one house ill at once, 3 in the other with the two who went out ill first and the one at home a week later. In both cases everyone in the household is working from home, no bubbles, all of them mask wearers, usually getting home deliveries. No reason to think they did any illicit socialising, neither friend are the type to rule-break nor lie if they did. Opposite sides of London. The only common theme I saw was that both had 2 people out together, so no doubt chatting and taking lots of time, maybe masks slip with chatting away and shops busy before Christmas. Who knows what forgotten encounter in the street or at their front door has happened though, it's impossible to say.

@JanuaryChill

And as a high proportion of transmission events take place at home, you don't need to have gone anywhere, unless you live alone!

I think though often if the people they live with have no symptoms they assume they couldn't have passed it on.

I know a number for whom parents and sometimes older children had it, and they've said how amazed they are the younger ones didn't get it-then an antibody test has shown they have had it too.
And in at least a couple of those families I would say the likelihood of the child being the one to bring it into the family was very high. On one of the families, the child had had a "mild tummy bug" about the right timing for them to have passed Covid on to the rest of them. But of course not being the main symptoms it was passed over.

It's one reason why I think children haven't been as immune to it as thought. I think they're more likely not to get the conventional symptoms, and not be tested.
I wonder with the new variant (how long before we stop calling it the "new" one I wonder!) whether part of it could be that children are more likely to show the main symptoms, hence be tested.

He is doing more harm than good

"Speaking on Sky News, UK vaccines minister Nadhim Zahawi has sought to reassure UK residents who have had just one dose of the Pfizer COVID vaccination - after some studies suggested it may be less efficient against new variants.
He said the UK’s vaccines regulator, the MHRA, and all the UK’s chief medical officers had looked “thoroughly” at all the data and that at 15 -21 days, the single first dose gave “very high protection”."

Looking at all data means nothing in this context! And I'm going to guess that most people don't even notice how much bullshit this is.
I wish we had old style, real journalists working at newspapers.

Fireflies I hope you mum's vaccination went well yesterday. I've been staying away from covid/vaccine information so I need to have a read and catch up so sorry if you have already updated. I heard on local tv that they have been doing hundreds of doses a day at Westpoint.

Latest situation at care home where I work is we have a possible date but not confirmed, needless to say it isn't before the 15th February. I was seething listening to Nadhim Zahawi this morning saying all homes that didn't have an active outbreak have received first dose. We don't have an active outbreak but our residents haven't had it or even been given a definite date. Needless to say management are trying to get it sorted, that's how we got the maybe date.

I think the big issue, well our residents are a big issue to me, but the big issue generally is how can we believe anything they tell us? I accept none of you know me and I could be lying but for me, my husband, my colleagues, the residents, their families and local services know that what I am saying is true and it must affect confidence.

@TheSunIsStillShining - ministers don't have the responsibility to decide that in the UK. It's been decided by MHRA and JCVI, who are making decisions about how to protect everyone best. University of East Anglia research looks promising meanwhile for individuals - "One Pfizer/BioNTech jab gives '90% immunity' from Covid after 21 days | Vaccines and immunisation | The Guardian" amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/03/one-pfizerbiontech-jab-gives-90-immunity-from-covid-after-21-days.

Just anecdata over here but my young but CEV DH has just had his AZ vaccine at the GP this afternoon. This is Scotland so we are a bit behind. He was called in spur of the moment due to a cancellation. Think that seems like a good and efficient way to do things. We didn’t even know he was on the list to be honest!

Really hope care homes like yours have them soon @ancientgran

@ATieLikeRichardGere Thank you. Great that your husband has had his first dose, you must feel relieved.

[quote MRex]@TheSunIsStillShining - ministers don't have the responsibility to decide that in the UK. It's been decided by MHRA and JCVI, who are making decisions about how to protect everyone best. University of East Anglia research looks promising meanwhile for individuals - "One Pfizer/BioNTech jab gives '90% immunity' from Covid after 21 days | Vaccines and immunisation | The Guardian" amp.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/03/one-pfizerbiontech-jab-gives-90-immunity-from-covid-after-21-days.[/quote]
It isn't 'after' 21 days.

I had a good look at that Hunter/Brainard preprint, and it seems to have no new data for one jab after day 21. It says whatsoever nothing about the Pfizer jab after 21 days with one jab, although it claims to have looked up to day 24 but does not specify whether that was still after one jab only.

What it does say is that effectiveness is at 90% at day 21, ie takes a full 3 weeks to get to that point, not 11 days or 14 days. This was in the original Pfizer trial data, although misunderstood by many who thought a line on a graph was the same thing as a data set.

It may be that the actual paper will contain something new about one jab after 21 days, but if so the preprint doesn't indicate it.

20634/915

Nice to see death rates finally dropping, hope this continues.

@Haffiana, the data from the original Pfizer trial, as published in the NEJM, did show immunity 'switching on' at around the 14 day mark. This was also the view of the JCVI.

I appreciate that the pre-print that you have linked to suggests something different. I have yet to find any further information in the public domain about this analysis than this, which is in effect an abstract. It is, however, based on a different data set and so it is unremarkable that it shows a different result.

If you're going to take digs at other posters here then you might want to make sure that they are accurate first.

English cases spec dates number continue to be positively downward.

Tuesday 2nd Feb

12187 cases added today vs 16062 last week.

2 day total now 14532 vs 18884 equivalent time last week.

So around 23% reduction

Monday 1st Feb

3036 added today vs 5320 last week

3 day total 18882 vs 25774 last week

Close to 27% reduction

Sunday 31st Jan

380 added today v 701 last week

4 day total 13622 vs 15250 last week

11% reduction

Saturday 30th Feb

212 added vs 399 last week

Day 5 total 14930 vs 19760 last week

24% reduction

And finally just for completeness Friday 29th totals 19643 vs a total of 26959 for the 22nd. So around 27% reduction.

@MRex
I know and that was not my point.

Giving 90% immunity (tested/proven) is not equal to having any % of immunity at 80 days. That's my problem.
HE makes it sound like there are whole datasets that can be analyzed. For P. there aren't. There are guesses.*

And another point. This is re-analysis of the same data where 2 set of ppl came up with less than 90% efficiency based on data and not peer reviewed.

1. now this is saying the exact opposite - so there should be a very clear argument of why
2. this should not be publicized until it's peer reviewed - see point 1.

I don't know if it's true or not - so no judgement, but from a logic perspective it is fishy if from the same set 2 180degree different conclusions can be drawn. Either the data is so broad that it allows for almost nay explanation to be true, or one set of ppl analysing made a mistake. Either way can be normal, but basing articles and ministers shouting it is not good. To me it feels like grasping at straws to justify a decision post mortem.

*if he was to say that in a follow up data gathering exercise that UK has been conducting since dec 4 the data shows..... than I would be jumping in joy. But not even a mention that there is a study going on.
If I want to believe something on the face of it without any questions I'll go to a church.

hi folks, the table on the www.covidmessenger.com homepage is now up to date with today's data release

As always, feel free to check the latest cases and rates per 100k for any council in England.

Also, I am trying to reach a wider audience so if you have the time, please do share widely, with family, friends, chat groups etc.

[quote Motorina]@Haffiana, the data from the original Pfizer trial, as published in the NEJM, did show immunity 'switching on' at around the 14 day mark. This was also the view of the JCVI.

I appreciate that the pre-print that you have linked to suggests something different. I have yet to find any further information in the public domain about this analysis than this, which is in effect an abstract. It is, however, based on a different data set and so it is unremarkable that it shows a different result.

If you're going to take digs at other posters here then you might want to make sure that they are accurate first.[/quote]
@Motorina Yes, the data showed that immunity 'switched on' at 14 days.

It did NOT show that it went to 90% at that point, which is the point of
a/ the actual preprint
b/ my post.

You are making a strawman argument over something I have not said or even inferred and also claiming that this switching on was the 'view' of the JCVI. It wasn't their 'view', it was shown very clearly in the data.

I am not having a 'dig' at anyone, but plenty of people were misunderstanding this and looking at one line on one graph of the original trial data, despite others of us who actually read the data pointing out that this was not what was shown. People still repeat this incorrect deduction in threads on here to the present.

When the early Israel data was released there was some astonishment that it did not show this -fictitious- 90% efficacy at 14 days.

This is what the preprint is reanalysing - the point at which the efficacy is actually 90%.

What has now been derived from the Israeli data according to this preprint is that 90% is achieved at 21 days - which is more or less identical with what the original Pfizer data showed.

OK? So are we back now to what the preprint and Haffiana actually said?

The Guardian HOWEVER, and as quoted by MRex has stated this preprint to say: "One Pfizer/BioNTech jab gives ‘90% immunity’ from Covid after 21 days"

I posted to point out that it says nothing of the sort. It makes no reference to 90% immunity after 21 days after 1 jab. It refers to 90% efficacy AT or BY 21 days.

My local council produces a table of rates for every borough in England but euro assume only a 3 day lag period so not quite complete. Worryingly, based on the incomplete data to 1 Feb there are now 15 councils with rising rates (including the 1 ranked borough, Corby). Could just be the Monday effect, might drop again on 2 Feb.

trafforddatalab.shinyapps.io/covid-19/

No idea why the word euro randomly appeared in my post!

@Haffiana - that's the automatic title from The Guardian; I linked it because that's the first Google link I found to the research. I read the same headline as meaning that 90% have immunity after 21 days, which aligns with the research, but having a look at it the beginning of the article is a bit confused with "One dose ofthe Pfizer/BioNTech vaccinegives people about 90% protection from Covid by 21 days". You could take it up with The Guardian if you feel strongly enough.

Our small MSOA has skyrocketed in the past few days. And I can't figure out why. Richmond overall is going down, but there are 3-4 msoas within that just keep going up. :(

@TheSunIsStillShining is there a care home in that MSOA? I read an interview with a London Borough PHE Director and they said there were significant issues in care homes in their Borough and indeed other London boroughs with the new “Kent” variant. I’ve got a link, if anyone would like it please PM me

@lurker101
not as far as I know. 3 priv schools (all closed), 1 state primary - almost full, and 2 types of residents mainly: low income/benefit estate and very rich old ppl. And an odd one like us - almost normal couple :) No offices, no factories, nothing. And we are not even a thorough part of R.. We're more like the dead end part