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

Grateful lurker here...can any of you wise lot explain this? I’m clearly not understanding!
In today’s info about vaccines from latest study apple.news/ACdf_1Os1QpiQH2huCb_Jnw
It said vaccines stop 80% hospitalisation. But then it said 85% effective at preventing death...I don’t understand how these figures work together? Do they mean 85% effective for those who do end up in hospital, or out of the 20% who catch it and end up hospitalised 3/4 will go on to to die? That seems a really large percentage?
I imagine I’m making some obvious mistake....please explain to me if you’ve got a minute.

Thanks MRex for the Bristol numbers. It looks like nothing to see here for now. I agree that surge testing will probably pull up a few more cases.
I know sequencing usually takes 2 weeks but I assume any contacts of the known cases will be top of the pile for U.K. sequencing and may only take a day or two.

@Sevensilverrings

Grateful lurker here...can any of you wise lot explain this? I’m clearly not understanding! In today’s info about vaccines from latest study apple.news/ACdf_1Os1QpiQH2huCb_Jnw It said vaccines stop 80% hospitalisation. But then it said 85% effective at preventing death...I don’t understand how these figures work together? Do they mean 85% effective for those who do end up in hospital, or out of the 20% who catch it and end up hospitalised 3/4 will go on to to die? That seems a really large percentage? I imagine I’m making some obvious mistake....please explain to me if you’ve got a minute.

Neither of these things.

Imagine you have two large groups of people. Both groups have the same size and are matched by age, gender, ethnicity etc. Group A gets the vaccine. Group B gets the placebo.

In group B, 100 people die of covid. In group A 15 people do.

The two groups were identical. Without the vaccine, you'd have expected 100 deaths in group A, too. So the vaccine has prevented 85 out of the likely a hundred deaths. It's 85% effective against death.

Same groups. In group B, 1000 people end up in hospital. In group A, 200 do. You would have expected a thousand - both groups are the same.

That means the vaccine has stopped 800 people from getting sick enough to go into hospital. 800/1000 works out as 80%. The vaccine is 80% effective against hospitalisation.

@Sevensilverrings

Grateful lurker here...can any of you wise lot explain this? I’m clearly not understanding! In today’s info about vaccines from latest study apple.news/ACdf_1Os1QpiQH2huCb_Jnw It said vaccines stop 80% hospitalisation. But then it said 85% effective at preventing death...I don’t understand how these figures work together? Do they mean 85% effective for those who do end up in hospital, or out of the 20% who catch it and end up hospitalised 3/4 will go on to to die? That seems a really large percentage? I imagine I’m making some obvious mistake....please explain to me if you’ve got a minute.

I'm sure someone smarter than me will post soon, and it's hard to tell exactly without looking at the actual study - but isn't the 80% hospitalisation figure related to over-80s only? The study was on over-70s only.

@Sevensilverrings

Grateful lurker here...can any of you wise lot explain this? I’m clearly not understanding! In today’s info about vaccines from latest study apple.news/ACdf_1Os1QpiQH2huCb_Jnw It said vaccines stop 80% hospitalisation. But then it said 85% effective at preventing death...I don’t understand how these figures work together? Do they mean 85% effective for those who do end up in hospital, or out of the 20% who catch it and end up hospitalised 3/4 will go on to to die? That seems a really large percentage? I imagine I’m making some obvious mistake....please explain to me if you’ve got a minute.

I think what they mean is that if 100 people would have gone to hospital previously, only 20 will if vaccinated. And if 100 would have died previously only 15 will if vaccinated.

So if 1000 old people caught Covid who weren't vaccinated, maybe 500 would end up in hospital and 100 would die. Post vaccine these figures would fall to 100 ending up in hospital (as 80% of the 500 were protected by the vaccine) and 15 dying (the other 85% of the 100 who would have died previously now being protected). So I guess that means that if those who end up in hospital, the death rate falls by 25% (15 out of 100 (15%), instead of 100 out of 500 (20%) under the example figures I've used here.

Thank you @MRex. Very helpful. Will take a look.

@Sevensilverrings - I reread that one a couple of times, wondering if it was related to care home deaths / "with covid" deaths etc. I realised eventually it's what we should expect of vaccines making illness much milder; the majority get SOME protection.
1000 placebo group in hospital and 200 vaccinated, 80 % protected.
100 placebo group deaths and 15 vaccinated, 85% protected.
10% versus 7.5% deaths; the death rate has still dropped for this group. (There may also be a proportion of people who might have died anyway.)

Thanks for explaining that for me. It makes more sense now. At some point I might dig out the data and see the actual numbers, but for now that’s reassuring (or at least much better than the way my head was spinning it)!

@Mrex exactly so.

It’s one reason why protection is lower against mild illness. Some people move from the serious illness group to the mild illness group, thus increasing the numbers who have mild disease.

I was just extending @Motorina and @Firefliess's explanations to add the percentages just to try to add the text link. Sorry I forgot the credit of "as they say"...

I wanted to work out the percentage we would expect to die each month for comparison with the covid percentage and with the vaccinated percentage. Roughly age 80+ have no more than 20 years to live (a few over 100s notwithstanding), so expect 5% to die per year, or 0.42% per month. I tried looking up actual figures and got 1.4m over 75s die each year, unhelpful age banding for this exercise. Regardless, even with my rough number 0.42% the percentage is much higher even after a vaccine, so halting transmission is critical long-term. (Have I missed something like a need to exclude mild illness or asymptomatic cases? I think mild are included in the percentages and asymptomatic would reduce by 1/3 at most, so still a higher death risk?)

@MRex. I'm not sure you need to go taking off the numbers who would have died anyway, because aren't the figures we're looking at all comparisons between vaccinated and unvaccinated people - who presumably die at the same rate as each other from non-Covid related causes?

Does anyone know if there is any information on transmission rates if you've had the vaccine? I'm hoping if they are so effective transmission rates will be dropping as well but can't find anything up to date on it.

BBC are reporting 1.2% of returning pupils and 1.6% of staff to be testing positive www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-56249586?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=603df60b4d910a02f0b3eb08%261.2%25%20of%20schoolchildren%20test%20positive%262021-03-02T08%3A48%3A29.896Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:38c396c9-0449-496d-a612-52aa01210200&pinned_post_asset_id=603df60b4d910a02f0b3eb08&pinned_post_type=share

That's going to cause a serious hike in the case rates over the next couple of weeks! I'm not sure how easy it'll be to separate out the cases in schools from others - you could work out the figures from lateral flow test positivity, but if most pupils who test positive go on to have a PCR test to confirm the result, that'll presumably be hard to separate out? We may have to rely on the hospitalisation rates and survey data from the ONS and React studies more to see what's going on over the next few months.

Is that consistent with the current estimated rates in society at large ? Ie expected ?

@ancientgran

Does anyone know if there is any information on transmission rates if you've had the vaccine? I'm hoping if they are so effective transmission rates will be dropping as well but can't find anything up to date on it.

not specifically but there is a chart circulating showing the the rate of decline in CASES in over 70s is faster than the unvaccinated. Not as steep as the decline in deaths and hospitalisations though. And of course less people getting it doesn't necessarily mean less people transmitting it (don't think)- I think the latter is going to be really hard to prove.

@midgedude

Is that consistent with the current estimated rates in society at large ? Ie expected ?

i think it's less. But still seems quite high to me.

@midgedude

Is that consistent with the current estimated rates in society at large ? Ie expected ?

It's about what the latest ONS data found, though that was data from a few weeks ago, so I'd have thought the rates would be a bit lower by now. It's probably data just from a few schools though, as most aren't starting the testing until next week AFAIK, so may turn out to be a bit lower overall.

@Firefliess is that not existing school population though? I’m trying to find out who that is that they’ve tested. So we could expect it to be higher than those going to return next week. As the kids currently in school are more likely to be key worker children/out of home worker children. So we would expect that population to have a higher infection rate than those of furloughed/wfh parents, because due to lockdown there are very few good excuses for furloughed/wfh parents to meet people etc.

Oh I forgot the Scottish and Welsh kids are back aren’t they, it’s maybe from their testing

Thanks Frazzled.

Is that consistent with the current estimated rates in society at large ? Ie expected ?

It is way too high...

Based on the latest ONS survey, estimated prevalence in primary and secondary school aged children is around 0.5% (0.7% for year 12).

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/26february2021

I would expect the numbers to decrease further post February 19th in line with reported cases.

BBC estimate of 1.2% is more than double the ONS number. Perhaps, it is based on a self-selecting sample (e.g. children who got tested might have had "unusual" symptoms like fatigue or headache) but I would still question the result.

I have to admit that the BBC article I just linked to is very unclear indeed about which pupils it is they're referring to. Schools have been testing their keyworker kids this week, who might have higher rates given their parents occupations (and the fact that they've been in school themselves all term!)

I think the ONS data was 1 in 145 and 1 in 115 the week before that, and REACT was 1 in 200 previously. So the quoted figures for school return are quite a bit higher than that.

However, are these figures for schools that have started the testing process early? And are they self-selecting to be from areas of higher incidence?

As there is a lot of local variation and it might be that higher risk areas would want to start testing in advance of return maybe?

Or might it be that previous infections are being picked up, when people didn't know they'd been infected?

The other thing is that ONS and REACT might contain particularly scientifically aware and careful families, and so be reporting a different self-selecting group of cautious people with low incidence of infection maybe.

@herecomesthsun

The other thing is that ONS and REACT might contain particularly scientifically aware and careful families, and so be reporting a different self-selecting group of cautious people with low incidence of infection maybe.

That's true. It'll be really interesting to see what rates they find across the board via the school testing programme. Will give some insight into how representative these studies really are.