Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Covid

Mumsnet doesn't verify the qualifications of users. If you have medical concerns, please consult a healthcare professional.

Data, Stats & Daily Numbers started 9th Feb

999 replies

NoGoodPunsLeft · 09/02/2021 07:19

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

OP posts:
Thread gallery
55
InterfectoremVulpes · 22/02/2021 13:48

If only we lived on an island like the japanese....

Well, we don't so no point in comparing 🤷‍♀️

CoffeeandCroissant · 22/02/2021 14:20

@MRex Yes, I was slightly surprised at just how high the proportion of elderly was who had AZ given that vaccinations with Pfizer started on 08/12/20 and those using AstraZeneca only started in the first week of January. Perhaps partly down to the AZ being much easier to transport to care homes, housebound etc? I know by 31/01/2021 in Scotland the total number of vaccinations was fairly evenly split between the two vaccines, with Pfizer being slightly higher, according to the PHS data.

ATieLikeRichardGere · 22/02/2021 14:28

Re the occupational data, it’s interesting and yet difficult to translate into policy conclusions as it points out “this analysis does not assess where transmission occurs” and also it doesn’t tell us about who is at risk of worse outcomes, and I also wonder whether the broad occupation categories may obscure more than they reveal. But interesting nonetheless!

herecomesthsun · 22/02/2021 14:29
Yep. Secretaries come in pretty high.

One problem with this is that 1. there are an awful lot of confounding factors, and 2. it is difficult to know where an infection was contracted.

Are the various groups of staff more or less likely to

  • be older
  • be BAME
  • have social deprivation factors
  • travel on public transport?

Do they have children (in December secondary school kids were 7 x more likely to bring infection into the home than adults apparently)

and so on.

I wonder if these factors have such a very large part to play that even if there is a risk associated with occupation, it is very hard to tease out.

This might be partly why cleaners are so impacted, partly why doctors are relatively less impacted, and partly why it is so hard to work out whether or not workplace settings put teachers at risk.

Very interesting data, thnks for posting it.

piggywaspushed · 22/02/2021 14:35

I don't know, but i suspect (via Robert Peston) that masks may be coming to school classrooms perhaps a s a result of this. Occupations which seem instinctively not very safe are relatively lower and all feature PPE.

Secretaries clearly need better protection!

piggywaspushed · 22/02/2021 14:36

The confidence intervals are also quite interesting I thought.

Firefliess · 22/02/2021 14:40
That's interesting, if not entirely conclusive. Why have they adjusted for things such as ease of social distancing at work and mask wearing at work though? I mean aren't those part of what would constitute the work-related risk that they're trying to measure?
TheSunIsStillShining · 22/02/2021 16:02

@piggywaspushed

I don't know, but i suspect (via Robert Peston) that masks may be coming to school classrooms perhaps a s a result of this. Occupations which seem instinctively not very safe are relatively lower and all feature PPE.

Secretaries clearly need better protection!

"For a period, secondary school pupils and older will wear masks in classes."

given how one class is called a period in the uk this statement could be funny if it wasn't so sad.

TheSunIsStillShining · 22/02/2021 16:04

Usually mondays are lower than sundays even, but this week it's not so.

piggywaspushed · 22/02/2021 16:41

I don't know fireflies : maybe to show that mask wearing ahs an effect? It's odd because last time round they were so adamant that they couldn't adjust things.

MargaretThursday · 22/02/2021 16:47

@TheSunIsStillShining

Usually mondays are lower than sundays even, but this week it's not so.
And it's higher than last Monday.
ancientgran · 22/02/2021 17:01

@boys3

Torbay not quite on par with somewhere like Blackpool for deprivation , but, and this surprised me a bit, it is in the 15% of most deprived councils in England. So certainly plenty of deprivation there.

16% of its LSOAs in the 10% most deprived nationally (England)

In contrast of the Devon district councils only North Devon has any LSOA in the 10% most deprived nationally.

yet most are at best middling in terms of deprivation relative to the rest of England. In terms of ranking of average deprivation score where 317th is the least deprived (Hart district council).

Torridge 99th,

North Devon 132nd

West Devon 162nd

Mid Devon 176th

Exeter 189th

Teignbridge 194th

South Hams 229th

East Devon 244th, just squeezing into the top quartile of least deprived authorities.

Although in terms of cumulative confirmed cases per 100,000, the five lowest councils are in Devon, the 7th and 8th lowest are in Devon. Just Exeter outside the lowest ten and at 35th lowest in only just outside the lowest 10%.

In terms of crude deaths per 100,000 (within 28 days of positive test) South Hams lowest in England. West Devon 2nd, North Devon 4th, Torridge 6th, Exeter 9th, Mid Devon 10th, Teignbridge 11th. Which just leaves East Devon at 24th, but well inside the lowest 10% of councils.

In terms of median age from the last ONS mid year estimate Exeter very youthful, and in the most youthful 10% of councils. South Hams 4th oldest. West Devon 5th, East Devon 7th. All three with a median age over 50. Torridge 14th, Teignbridge 23rd, North Devon 42nd. Mid Devon 65th, median age there still 46.7. Median for the SW is 44.1, not surprisingly highest median age of any region. England median exactly 40. Devon overall median is 47.5, meaning Cumbria, North Yorkshire and East Sussex with slightly higher median age.

Which means I must come back to my original point about there being something in the water down there. Smile

Yes you've got it, it is something that makes water taste vile but I suppose if it is keeping us safe I should stop moaning about how tea in Devon is horrible if you don't have a water filter.

On a more serious tone yes Torbay has more deprivation that people realise. Of course it also has alot of wealthy people, real extremes. I think the study I heard was broken down into the different elements used to calculate deprivation and Torbay was doing badly with every single one, I can't remember them all but education, housing, income, health care that sort of thing. Hard to appreciate from where I am on the border of Torbay and South Hams and surrounded by comfortably off retirees in nice detached houses, most with two cars on the drive and one neighbour having 3 cruises booked for this year and the other waiting to go to their holiday home in France. We aren't in the millionaire area of Torquay.

boys3 · 22/02/2021 17:10

Specimen dates breakdown for England for the 9420 cases added today - given 8609 were added last Monday.

Sunday 21st

1748 cases added today as compared with 1610 for the equivalent last week

Saturday 20th

4905 cases added today, taking two day total to 5952

Equivalent last week 5066 cases added to take total at that point to 6413.

Currently therefore this week is 7.2% lower.

Friday 19th

2129 cases added taking three day total to 8534.

Equivalent last week 1576 cases added taking total to 10,079.

This week so far 15% lower

Thursday 18th

520 cases added today taking four day total to 9762.

Equivalent last week 248 cases added taking total to 10979.

This week 11% lower.

Using the four day lag the most recent pretty much fully reported 7 day period is around 18% down on the prior 7 days.

The seven day rolling average for cases has now fallen below 10,000 in England standing at 9842.

The last time it was in 4 figures was in the seven days to 3rd October.

In terms of the week starting Monday 15th just over 59,000 cases around 11% less than the equivalent figure last week.

Again today’s numbers show a lot of regional, and indeed more local, variation. London and South west still powering ahead, then South East and East. Single digit percentage falls though in Yorks / Humber and East Midlands.

sirfredfredgeorge · 22/02/2021 17:20

So it was mostly a larger lag on the Thursday/Friday numbers, that was after the snow wasn't it, so not people swapping to postal due to snow or labs being delayed by employees not getting there?

Is there any explanation?

Thimbleberries · 22/02/2021 17:22

Data/stats question for those who might know -
why is the number of people in each of the 5-year population groups so different, and not just getting gradually smaller as the groups get older?

e.g., according to the govt site:
75-79: 2.3 million
70-74: 3.2 million
65-69: 2.9 million
60-64: 1.8 million
55-59: 2.4 million
50-54: 2.8 million

There are 1.2 clinically extremely vulnerable people under 70 who they might potentially have been taking into account and reducing those age groups accordingly, but I don't think so, as they say that some people could fall into more than one group.

(over 80s is 3.3 million, but that includes more than just 80-84 year olds, so not a fair comparison with the other age groups; the vaccine site doesn't break them down into 5-year cohorts, though I'm sure the data is avialable elsewhere)

Why so few 60-64 year olds, for example? And comparatively so many 70-74 year olds, more than each of cohorts in their 50s.

MRex · 22/02/2021 17:30

Birth rates vary: www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/birth-rate
So do death rates, though you'd need to dig deeper to find ll age groups that have been affected by early deaths: www.macrotrends.net/countries/GBR/united-kingdom/death-rate.
Most likely it's largely birth rate fluctuations. -4% to +4% can be an awful lot of people.

sirfredfredgeorge · 22/02/2021 17:30

It just reflects the birthrate - the boom after the 2nd world war, the reduction due to abortion/contraception/people coming of age from the 2nd world war etc.

CoffeeandCroissant · 22/02/2021 17:34

Preliminary data from the PHE SIREN study on the Pfizer/Biontech vaccine also came out today:
www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-new-reports-from-phe-on-pfizer-biontech-vaccine-effectiveness-data-and-the-siren-study/

Thimbleberries · 22/02/2021 17:40

I guess I was just surprised that it was as big a difference as that really. Makes sense though.

yes I saw a report on the new Pfizer data just now, remarkable how different all the numbers from these studies are, depending on the details of what is reported and how - no wonder the media have a field day in picking and choosing what they want to report!

boys3 · 22/02/2021 18:23

@Thimbleberries

Data/stats question for those who might know - why is the number of people in each of the 5-year population groups so different, and not just getting gradually smaller as the groups get older?

e.g., according to the govt site:
75-79: 2.3 million
70-74: 3.2 million
65-69: 2.9 million
60-64: 1.8 million
55-59: 2.4 million
50-54: 2.8 million

There are 1.2 clinically extremely vulnerable people under 70 who they might potentially have been taking into account and reducing those age groups accordingly, but I don't think so, as they say that some people could fall into more than one group.

(over 80s is 3.3 million, but that includes more than just 80-84 year olds, so not a fair comparison with the other age groups; the vaccine site doesn't break them down into 5-year cohorts, though I'm sure the data is avialable elsewhere)

Why so few 60-64 year olds, for example? And comparatively so many 70-74 year olds, more than each of cohorts in their 50s.

The reason would be that those figures are.......of dubious provenance if they relate to the total UK population.

These are as per the most recent ONS mid year population estimate and are for UK overall as opposed to any lower level geography.

In other the latest and most accurate numbers. Hopefully I’ve not mistyped any.

By 5 year age bands starting at 50

50 to 54 4,661,016

55 to 59 4,405,908

60 to 64 3,755,185

65 to 69 3,368,199

70 to 74 3,318,867

75 to 79 2,325,296

80 to 84 1,715,328

85 to 89 1,042,090

90+. 605,181

Thimbleberries · 22/02/2021 18:29

well those would be much more in line with what I'd expect in terms of the trend over the age groups.

But totally different from the government figures (from the government official report into ending lockdown today, in the vaccine stats area. Not the total number given vaccines, but the number supposedly in each group!) I can't remember where they claimed the figures were from.

ceeveebee · 22/02/2021 18:36

www.gov.uk/government/publications/uk-covid-19-vaccines-delivery-plan/uk-covid-19-vaccines-delivery-plan#fn:2

Those numbers are from this document, which was that they are “As at 10 January 2021, based on NHSEI data for England, extrapolated to UK.”

Could it be because the under 65 clinically vulnerable have been removed and put into a separate category (with 7.3m people in). Are there a disproportionate number of 60-64 year old on this list?

Thimbleberries · 22/02/2021 18:48

I wondered that at first, but it said that they didn't really know the exact numbers of people in the vulnerable category, so it didn't really seem to be based on specifics that they would be able to identify age groups from. they also say somewhere that people could be in more than one group, which suggests that they didn't take people out of age categories based on vulnerability, either under or over 70s.

boys3 · 22/02/2021 18:49

@Thimbleberries

well those would be much more in line with what I'd expect in terms of the trend over the age groups.

But totally different from the government figures (from the government official report into ending lockdown today, in the vaccine stats area. Not the total number given vaccines, but the number supposedly in each group!) I can't remember where they claimed the figures were from.

@Thimbleberries

This is from the ONS - populations by 5 yr age bands

Data, Stats & Daily Numbers started 9th Feb
Swipe left for the next trending thread