Data, Stat, Daily Numbers started 26th May 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/
Covid 19 Variant Mapping Sanger Institute covid19.sanger.ac.uk/lineages/raw
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

Thanks @boys3

Listening to discussion on R4 about Ravi Gupta’s warning this morning that we should wait a few weeks until we have more data and not proceed to Step Four on 21 June, at which point things like LARGER WEDDINGS can take place:
does Boris and Carrie’s limited numbers affair, perhaps organised at quite short notice, indicate that they know 21 June is off? Ever since he stated at Step Three that we’d have to wait and see about the next step, I’ve thought he was being much more cautious than usual.

This is semi-serious analysis!

I assume along with a distraction from other events, Boris Carrie wants to meet Joe Biden as Mr & Mrs.

Thank you @boys3 bit concerned about the difference between Cheshire East and CWAC... I'm guessing it's Manchester v Liverpool/NWales, we think of ourselves as the independent republic of South Cheshire

I wouldn't assume Boris has any inside knowledge of post June 21 plans with any certainty. And when though his wedding came as a surprise to the public it seems unlikely it wasn't planned at least a few weeks ago.

to follow from earlier - delay due to taking DH for his second jab :)

These are council with no cases picked up w/e 22nd but cases already identified in w/e 29th May, and in a number of instances also in weeks prior to 22nd May.

then Councils with no cases as yet identified if w/e 22nd May or w/e 29th May but which previously had B1.617.2 case(s) identified in earlier weeks.

Gosh am surprised to see no cases identified yet in Corby, or Oadby and Wigston. Both have had high case numbers relatively recently - but Kent variant presumably.

though his wedding came as a surprise to the public it seems unlikely it wasn't planned at least a few weeks ago.

It would have to be, because of the requirement to give notice.

jan Corby and Oadby and Wigston are both in the last pic posted (15:05) for councils with no B1.617.2 identified as yet w/e 22nd May or 29th May but have had B1.617.2 identified in earlier weeks.

This is the recent breakdown for those two councils from the Sanger data.

You are quite right very few Indian variant picked up in either, all Kent variant. Not sure what the "none" categorisation indicates.

finally these are all the Councils in which no B1.617.2 has been picked up as yet through normal surveillance testing.

It includes some quite good sized Councils by population. However taking Wakefield as an example the latest Sanger download shows no standard surveillance testing of cases in w/e 22nd or w/e 29th May; and just 2 in w/e 15th May (both Kent variant).

Took me ages to find Kirklees. Really low B1.617.2 in spite of being a hotspot. Wonder if it's our Yorkshire variant driving the high numbers here.

mobile.twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1399333330286415876?fbclid=IwAR1UBIK4yu36-9Tl-NOPmNwTwYOaLf8IjpTni3Z6S7mqFkqwH9A62KEgWwA

Christina Pagel sharing and commenting on today’s Sanger data: as she puts it, TLDR: it is NOT good news.

In the SAGE model shown, presumably “Complete protection” means that it assumes vaccines give 100% protection against hospitalisation? Am not sure why she comments that the scenarios “start at 40%” more transmissible, they range from 10 - 50 %.

Sorry folks just popping this here for max coverage:

Today 15,000 Covid jabs to be given out at Twickenham stadium. It is a walk in centre. Just turn up.

Anyone in the eight west London boroughs over 18 wanting the jab needs to get there before 7.30pm.

If you or your adult kids are in west London RUN RUN RUN

(And the latest data suggests 67% more transmissibility)

1 death reported today

Am not sure why she comments that the scenarios “start at 40%” more transmissible, they range from 10 - 50 %.

She comments that SAGE bad scenarios start from 40%.

If B.167.2 is "only" 10-30% more transmissible, the exit wave will be relatively small and manageable from the healthcare perspective.

If the transmission advantage is 40% or higher, the exit wave might grow larger very quickly.

However, there are further assumptions in SAGE modelling that are already out of date. For instance, vaccine protection against hospitalisations appears to be much higher than assumed 90% (extra 5-8% will significantly change the model). On the other hand, B.167.2 has developed some degree of immune escape which is a negative.

James Ward (the mathematician on twitter) runs his own models and I will not be surprised if they end up more close to reality than SAGE estimates. Currently the size of the exit wave based on his calculations is still unknown. We can only wait and see what happens over next couple of weeks.

Thanks @wintertravel1980. So what does “complete protection” mean, not 90% surely?

However, there are further assumptions in SAGE modelling that are already out of date

This is the disaster that is the publication of the modelling, they don't update it, and they don't ever explain what they got wrong (modelling is of course hard, it's not as if I expect them to get it right, but say, we're pretty sure we underestimated the amount of voluntary measures people took or whatever it was rather than not commenting about their previous failure.

Just re-run the model with the more realistic assumptions!

@sirfredfredgeorge
Or put it online with sliders so that ppl can play around.
Or just simply make it available online and update it frequently - like the projections in worldometer.

It would be easier to put faith in models that had assumptions updated regularly. I don't care if they're wrong if they're the best view at the time, but seeing interpretation of models with multiple known incorrect assumptions irritates me. Actuaries would never be allowed to leave incorrect assumptions without updating them at least by month end reporting, why can these people? At that point we might as well shrug and stick a finger in the air.

So what does “complete protection” mean, not 90% surely?

My understanding is that the "complete protection" assumption relates to cross-immunity from previous infections (Section 5):

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/984533/S1229_Warwick_Road_Map_Scenarios_and_Sensitivity_Steps_3_and_4.pdf

Warwick scenario number 4 (a proxy for modelling spread of B.167.2) assumes "complete protection" (100% cross immunity with B.117) and increased transmissibility.

@MRex

It would be easier to put faith in models that had assumptions updated regularly. I don't care if they're wrong if they're the best view at the time, but seeing interpretation of models with multiple known incorrect assumptions irritates me. Actuaries would never be allowed to leave incorrect assumptions without updating them at least by month end reporting, why can these people? At that point we might as well shrug and stick a finger in the air.

That's very true. And why I follow James Ward on Twitter as he updates his model very quickly as soon as new information comes to light, explaining everything that's changed since the last iteration, and why. He also explains all the assumptions he's made and plays around with different ones to see what impact they make. I find that very much more useful than the Sage published ones which are opaque and always out of date by the time of publication. It's crap that the this is just an amateur modelling as a hobby - the government really ought to have its own model and be updating it daily as information changes, and sharing what it's doing. A basic model using Excel but with up to date assumptions about transmission etc is far more useful than a mathematically sophisticated one with assumptions that are out of date and known to be wrong by the time it's published.

Warwick paper I referenced includes sensitivity analysis to major variables (including impact of seasonality, vaccine efficacy, vaccine roll out speed, etc). It (unsurprisingly) shows that the scale of the exit wave is completely uncertain. It may be a tsunami, it may be a small bump.

The government of Peru just announced a huge reevaluation of the cumulative number of COVID-19 deaths in the country, from 69,000 to 180,000.