Data, Stats and Daily Numbers started 6th April 2021

[boys3]

UK govt pressers Slides & data www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasets-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conferences#history
Data Dashboard coronavirus.data.gov.uk/
Covid 19 Genomics www.cogconsortium.uk/tools-analysis/public-data-analysis-2/
NHS Vaccination data www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
Global vaccination data ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations
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 imperialcollegelondon.github.io/covid19local/#map
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 area 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, cases, tests, deaths Dashboard public.tableau.com/profile/public.health.wales.health.protection#!/vizhome/RapidCOVID-19virology-Public/Headlinesummary
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 (from last summer) 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 (European Centre for Disease Control) rolling 14-day incidence EEA & UK www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/cases-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=eur&areas=usa&areas=bra&areas=gbr&areas=cze&areas=hun&areasRegional=usny&areasRegional=usnj&areasRegional=usaz&areasRegional=usca&areasRegional=usnd&areasRegional=ussd&cumulative=0&logScale=0&per100K=1&startDate=2020-09-01&values=deaths

PHE local health data fingertips.phe.org.uk/profile/health-profiles
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

That's the previous version @sirfred. Have a look at the updated Sage modelling report, using the latest data on transmission. www.gov.uk/government/publications/university-of-warwick-road-map-scenarios-and-sensitivity-29-march-2021

Reduction in infections of between 60% (one dose AZ) and 92% (2 doses Pfizer)

@ancientgran those are good values. The other day in south west bbc news they said 64% had already had the jab so those numbers match

Reduction in infections of between 60% (one dose AZ) and 92% (2 doses Pfizer)

That's just one of the model's they accepted:
Appendix 2, model assumptions, Warwick still has 50% as a minimum in that, and models no waning immunity (which as they note is very optimistic) but even with the more optimistic rates you cite, all of those models still predict a 3rd wave - a 3rd wave is not normality.

I'm more than happy with saying we'll accept cases, deaths and transmission like those SAGE models are implying (I can't see how you get an R of 3 in all models without ignoring even test & trace) but I do not believe that is what most people are saying when they say normality, normality is not a 3rd wave.

Latest council first dose vaccination rates by age bands, and sorted by the overall over 50s take up. Final columns also show total over 16s having received first dose, and ranking for that as well. Presented by region so starting at the opposite ends of England with the South West and North East.

London plus Yorkshire & Humber

South East

East Midlands

East of England

North West

finally West Midlands

Just to remind as previously percentages based on NIMS population estimates otherwise with ONS we miraculously get over 100% uptake, good for spin, but not for a data thread

Thanks!!

@boys3 My local health trust has put out vaccination figures using ONS population numbers, and they're quite different from yours - My area is languishing towards the bottom of its region in your tables, but they're claiming 90%+ for all age groups over 50, and (somewhat implausibly) 100% for some. Any idea why they differ so much?

@boys3 - NIMS is based on GP records, is it possible that it includes a lot of previously registered people who've moved overseas? (I suspect many people don't cancel a GP when moving country?) Might it also include duplicate records where multiple GPs added the same person in different areas because they didn't unregister the person, or has the NHS number been de-duplicated? How does the figure take account of people unregistered with a GP (homeless, etc)? Is there any risk that residents of prisons, care homes and homeless are listed twice because their immunisation was linked to a place rather than GP?

My area in SW London is lagging a bit, but nobody in their 40s has been invited (outside Groups 1, 2, 4, 6) so they aren't anywhere near finished. Their site says they invited 40,000 through QCovid who didn't respond yet; but I was group 6 and invited only 13th March, plus neighbours in their 60s were frustrated that they were late. I suspect the vaccine distribution lumpiness affects different areas at different times, so some of the lower percentages might have nothing to do with take-up but either distribution efficiency or availability.

Think I remember reading that ONS data is based on the last census, though with some adjustment which means it is mostly from 2011. There are some areas that appear to have vaccinated more than 100% in some age bands because of population changes.

GP/NIMS is based on NHS numbers and is a single number to prevent duplication, however MREX is correct that not everyone changes their GP or updates their address when they move house. This especially applies to healthy males who tend to have less contact with their GP than women using contraception & perinatal services.

When people arrive for vaccination, their details are confirmed via their NHS number and checked with the address details & GP practice associated with that number. If people have moved, we obviously advise them to update their address details with their GP and if their GP isn't local to register with a local GP.

So yes, I have vaccinated plenty of people whose records will be updated 200 miles from where they received their jab. To provide some context though, this would mostly be younger people and - in my view - not in enough numbers to skew the data significantly.

Long story short. I have more confidence in Boy's graphs than ONS

Morning, sorry to butt in here but I keep seeing references on threads to 1 in 3 are asymptomatic carriers liable to infect people.

So I googled to find the data that supports this, but even with the specific search terms it's all a bit vague.

So I thought this might be the thread to ask on?

Happy to be told I'm a complete dunce and it's all very obvious, under a fair amount of personal stress at the moment so probably being too scatterbrain, but this quoted figure is bugging me.

Mistress, is that from headlines saying up to 1 in 3 could be asymptomatic carriers?

It may not be true in this case, but there's been an awful lot of that sort of thing bandied about and reproduced on SM as gospel. I've heard the ad on the radio but haven't been paying attention to the exact wording!

@amicissimma

Many thanks for your reply

This is what I'm chipping away at - is it as you say selective reading of headlines being condensed and spread by social media, or is there solid data somewhere? I found a WHO link that suggests there was still too little info to confirm how prevalent asymptomatic spread in about June of last year, but not much else solid or official.

If it is true and proven, fine, it should inform and alter our behaviours or cement them, but if it isn't it's quite a strong erroneous message to disseminate.

Can anyone knowledgeable explain why the different models at the moment are coming up with such different predictions, and if there is a way to determine if one is more likely to be accurate?

I read in the Telegraph that: (www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/04/07/exclusive-britain-will-pass-covid-herd-immunity-threshold-monday/)

UCL modelling says we'll reach herd immunity (73.4% with some form of immunity either from vaccination or having had it) on Monday
but
Imperial College says it's 34%
and
ONS says it's 54%
and
SPI-M modelling suggests a third wave with deaths as high as Jan if we unlock fully in June.

They can't all be right, surely. So how do you assess them?

1 in 3 people with covid do not have current symptoms is well within the bounds of reasonableness, if anything it's low.

every case with ~2 days pre-symptomatic and 10 day total is 1 in 5 alone, then you have the group who never get symptoms.

Here's a review paper on the number who are asymptomatic
journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0241536
They're not super confident in the numbers, but it's clear it's a substantial proportion, 1/3rd is certainly reasonable.

Of course this is 1 in 3 of the people with covid, and that's a few hundred thousand at most in the UK at the moment according to all the evidence.

GP/NIMS is based on NHS numbers and is a single number to prevent duplication, however MREX is correct that not everyone changes their GP or updates their address when they move house. This especially applies to healthy males who tend to have less contact with their GP than women using contraception & perinatal services.

And as we noted in October that will also effect students. Students are often encouraged to reregister with a practice in their student city. Currently a lot of students have stayed in their home city, so that must effect numbers, especially in the places that have a good proportion of students.

@sirfredfredgeorge

Thank you for that. Most interesting.

@MargaretThursday

GP/NIMS is based on NHS numbers and is a single number to prevent duplication, however MREX is correct that not everyone changes their GP or updates their address when they move house. This especially applies to healthy males who tend to have less contact with their GP than women using contraception & perinatal services.

And as we noted in October that will also effect students. Students are often encouraged to reregister with a practice in their student city. Currently a lot of students have stayed in their home city, so that must effect numbers, especially in the places that have a good proportion of students.

Although with a focus on those aged 50 and over students should not be an issue for that percentage calculation.

@bath I think there genuinely is a degree of uncertainty about the proportion who are immune. But that Telegraph article is full of unlikely estimates and clearly written for headlines/pressure to unlock. It's been widely slated by well informed realistic people on Twitter. At the other extreme the 34% estimate sounds implausible too, all things considered. The ONS figure is for people with antibodies, to my mind has to be a lower bound estimate on the actual proportion with at least some immunity, because there's likely to be some additional T cell immunity, and (possibly) some people who are naturally immune (though the Telegraph's 10% estimate for this appears picked out of thin air)
So the likely proportion at present seems likely to be around 60% or so. It'll rise as we vaccinate more (though not as fast as crude vaccination figures, as some of those we vaccinate will already have had Covid) and it may fall a little over time as immunity wanes - we don't really know that yet.

Whether the numbers with immunity is enough to prevent a third wave then depends on the natural R rate, whether we maintain any mitigation measures (bans on big gatherings, masks, WFH, etc) and the extent to which the unvaccinated population manage to infect each other - models tend to assume people mix evenly, but we know that they don't. Teenagers or social groups of anti-vaccers could sustain significant outbreaks if they mix as normal, and the extent to which that'll happen is largely guesswork as far as I can gather.

Picking up the student point, Oxford and Cambridge which we discussed a few days ago have shorter terms and so - I would imagine - students are less likely to change GP.

Regardless, I've just looked again at boys stats for East of England. The worst areas mostly have a lower take-up across all age bands compared with the better-performing ones. To my mind that suggests culture, ethnicity and demographic issues rather than students.

As I posted towards the end of the last thread the notes tab on the weekly NHS vaccination file summarises the basis for the ONS and NIMS population estimates, and the rationale for what is best used dependent on geographic level.

Hence I’ve used the NIMS figure. The calculation is about as simple as it gets. Two data sets identically ordered, one with vaccination number by age band and one with population. I have the highest level of confidence in excel’s ability to calculate a percentage. Indeed having had my first jab some weeks ago I regularly hear Bill in my head which can be a bit off putting at times, however he has said that when I get the second that will introduce the fully automated audio and visual feeds so he won’t need to trouble me anymore. However I digress from the question at hand.....

Back to the more mundane question of population estimates. If the desire is to depict the grass as being just that bit greener then ONS is the one to use at every level. Never mind that we may have over 100% take up for some council age band levels; or upwards of 200% or more for some MSOAs. If it is all about the narrative then inconvenient truths really have no place.

Within the constraints of the MN daily picture limit I’ll look to show some of the key extremes between ONS and NIMS figures, this is mainly London, and within that then mainly in the 16-49 age band; and with some wide variation between boroughs. Hammersmith and Fulham seems to be at the extreme end for example.

Then an abridged version of the graphs posted last night adding an ONS based uptake percentage alongside the NIMS figure. To ensure it does not become so small that it becomes unreadable I will likely use either broader (eg ten year) age bands or maybe just fewer age bands (eg focus on over 50s; 16-49s; and all aged 16+. It will depend what best fits my desired narrative

If MN, as opposed to time, allows, a limited student impact assessment. My preference is to start with Charnwood, and perhaps somewhere like Lincoln, and / or whichever council area is home to Keele or Royal Holloway, perhaps even Warwick (a field outside Coventry is presumably not within the Coventry city council area). Durham would be another but with County Durham being a single unitary blob council area population would not be relevant. Perhaps the specific Durham city MSOAs though.