Data, Stats & Daily Numbers started 27th Feb

[boys3]

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

My sibling and dh are both getting their 1st jabs this weekend! I have another family member getting theirs who cares for their spouse who has lots of health conditions - but the person they care for hasn't been offered one. They don't seem too bothered but that didn't make much sense to me?

Where I am, the methods of getting lft tests for parents of primary school kids hasn't been thoroughly explained at all. Word of mouth has been great but I do think lots of messaging is getting muddled.

Scotland did reopen nurseries and infant schools from 22 February I think? Perhaps that is driving some increase? There isn’t an age heat map for Scotland though

On Scotland, there was a lot of press recently about the SPL football celebrations outside one of the clubs about a week ago, which although outside didn’t seem to be socially distanced. Possibly some socialisation/watching the big match in others home, which would maybe be filtering through to case numbers now.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/football/2021/mar/07/sturgeon-condemns-infuriating-celebrations-rangers-fans-coronavirus

@ceeveebee

Scotland did reopen nurseries and infant schools from 22 February I think? Perhaps that is driving some increase? There isn’t an age heat map for Scotland though

It's just LFT testing impact I think, quite an even spread. A few recent little outbreaks, but that's not unusual.

Nurseries have been open all year in England, infections for that age group dropped along with every other age. I'm confused why little kids are still so often the first suspect after the data has had a whole year now of showing lower infectivity rates proportionally than adults?

www.tes.com/news/schools-reopening-strange-lack-positives-school-covid-tests

Surely if children are testing negative (apart from the odd false negative) they can’t be shedding a high viral load and so are therefore unlikely to pass it on? I don’t see the logic behind saying cases are not being picked up in large numbers, how can children’s systems be so different to adults that they have covid but do not test positive when an adult would? Very confused by that TES article.

The rate of false negatives with LFTs is rather higher than "the odd one" - around 50% iirc.

@MRex - I’m just pointing out, in response to @Eccle80 that the only easing to lockdown in Scotland has been the opening of early years and infants which could be a factor, hence the word “perhaps”.
Has there been any recent increase in LFD testing in Scotland? They won’t be testing secondary school there until after Easter.

Thanks @ceeveebee, I guess that could be a factor, I forgot they didn’t have nurseries open at all

@ceeveebee - I thought they started already: news.stv.tv/west-central/lateral-flow-covid-tests-for-teachers-and-pupils-twice-a-week. I can't say for a fact though as I'm not in Scotland.

I wonder whether the weather could be a factor in Scotland? We saw the fall in cases plateau across the UK when the weather was bad, then fall again as it got a bit better. Cold weather and gales I imagine discourage people from seeing friends outdoors and some of them will meet indoors instead.

@Firefliess
I was also wondering about weather- similarly the south of England seems to have dramatically less issues generally than the north

On a more general point I do think as numbers generally get a lot less, little local “spikes” (such as in Merthyr currently) will be far more visible. Eg If your area only has 20 cases per week currently if there is suddenly an outbreak that causes an additional spike that will be a significant increase whereas it would have gone broadly unnoticed in the stats a few weeks ago. Similarly to numbers themselves will be naturally more sensitive to small increases than they would be earlier in the winter. Eg 20 cases rising to 22 cases would be marked as “rising” when it really isn’t significantly

@frazzled that is very true, a 20 case outbreak is far more noticeable in the numbers when they are low, especially when looked at in smaller areas

@JanFebAnyMonth

The rate of false negatives with LFTs is rather higher than "the odd one" - around 50% iirc.

It varies with the study:

The Liverpool study of the test on 3199 patients:assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/943187/S0925_Innova_Lateral_Flow_SARS-CoV-2_Antigen_test_accuracy.pdf gave results of 85.7% sensitivity for high viral load, and 48.9% for low viral load (ie 15 - 51% false negatives)

The PHE / University of Oxford study: www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-11-11-oxford-university-and-phe-confirm-lateral-flow-tests-show-high-specificity-and-are In the Phase 4 trials from this study, performance was optimal (79.2% sensitivity, so 21% false negatives) when the device was used by laboratory scientists, quite similar (73.0%, so 27% false negatives) when administered by trained healthcare-workers but only 57.5% sensitivity (42% false negatives) when administered by self-trained members of the public given a protocol, which is the format for in-school testing.

There is also a small University of Birmingham study where the false negative rate was 97% (and false positives over 50%). www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4941 I don't think it is known why it was so poor, but it is worrying because it is the one closest in structure to in-school testing.

@cantkeepawayforever - there were only a few tens of cases found in that study of maybe 1600, at least some of whom might have had old infections; that's a possible reason why the numbers were quirky and it means the "3%" is not mathematically sound. We had hundreds of posts debating Jon Deeks (claims no value in LFT) versus others who think the opposite, even some who seem to think they should replace PCR. I'd never heard of the man before, now every time I read an article against LFTs there's bloody Deeks again, has anyone else noticed the same?

MRex - I know. that's why I included it as well as, rather than instead of, the other 2 studies. None show LOW false negatives, just the range of results found in the studies is so wide that it's not really possible to give a true figure.

I think Deeks has become rent a gob because journalists are lazy essentially. But he really isn't the only big doubter of LFTs. The reason he started was because of the Birmingham findings, as that is where he is based iirc.

The Birmingham one you mention is Deeks cant. the assumption is because they were young people, self testing. They were supervised so it is very like a schol model. The children I ahve been seeing on telly doing the tests are very rarely doing them properly.

The trained members of the public is interesting. I think we can all assume when LFTs start being done by young people and their families in their own homes, sensitivity /reliability will be pretty poor.

There probably needs to be some sort of TV campaign about the testing, and more emphasis on the importance of administering it as properly as you can. I ahve seen some TV doctors showing people how to do it, but this seems to be more of the 'it's nothing to worry about' soothing type thing. They are rarely actually doing the tests in real time.

It's crazy when you recall the concern on MN, but everywhere really, when testing was first introduced in May/June time, about self swabbing. And bear in mind there are still lots of people who haven't experienced that.

Now millions of people are expected not only to self swab/assist their secondary child, but also to set up, process the tests and to read the results accurately.

It's a massive ask of Joe Public.

@Piggywaspushed

I think Deeks has become rent a gob because journalists are lazy essentially. But he really isn't the only big doubter of LFTs. The reason he started was because of the Birmingham findings, as that is where he is based iirc.

Hah. I like "rent a gob". Yes, it's probably that the journalists already have his email address to ask him for a comment, much quicker than finding a range of scientific opinions. Lots of scientists seem to be in the middle, saying LFT have their place but used with caution. Then there was the Deeks and crew versus .... er... I forgot his lead adversary's name who commented everywhere? The one who kept going on about false positives for old infections and too many PCR cycles... Peter M or something.

Yes, forgotten his name too! The fringe tends to get over represented.
I am quite glad the 'used with caution' lobby won out over the 7 day testing in schools thing, though! So far.

Michael Mina. I was way off on my guessing.

Oh yes, that rings a bell!

Lots of scientists seem to be in the middle, saying LFT have their place but used with caution.

That seems entirely sensible, given the wide range of results from studies and with a 'best case scenario' of 15% false negatives for those with high viral load.

4618 cases 52 deaths