Data, Stats Thread June 11

[PatriciaHolm]

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

[quote ILookAtTheFloor]Interesting article in the Telegraph today about how the UK is being punished for its transparency, when we test 10x as many people a day than Germany..

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/06/24/britain-punished-germanys-restrictions-mass-testing-strategy/[/quote]
im surprised by the German numbers, a poster mentioned that in Germany or some areas of Germany you have to have a lateral test before going to shops or doing any day to day activities, sure the numbers should have been higher I that was the case than 60m ?

I think this is why more A&Es are sharing locations with a GP based service. You then get triaged to one service or the other. I think it's particularly important with paediatrics when those judgement calls can be tricky for parents. I know I've both over reacted and underreacted to my kid's illnesses before.

Germany test less, but their positivity still isn't remarkably high. Test numbers and cases are in charts here: ourworldindata.org/coronavirus-testing.

Some of the policy section is a bit ropy, e.g. it suggests UK only has symptomatic testing (LFTs anyone?!), but the figures are usually accurate.

@MRex

It is worrying, but I do also think 111 are over-cautious and there should be some sort of pragmatic medical advice helpline that doesn't send you to hospital regardless. For example, we didn't know what we could safely give DS when he had norovirus as a little one; we both had it too so I wanted to give water as well as breastmilk for my own sake but wondered if he could have dioralytes with it, and if so how much, so called 111. 30 min drive to hospital was mandated (we were away) to be told breastmilk or water with dioralytes, and 30 min drive back. 3 of us with norovirus, you can imagine how fun that was.

I had exactly the same with dd1, I wanted info rather than being worried. I argued back and told them if they thought she needed to be seen (which she didn't) then I'd go to the GP which was 2 minutes walk rather than take a bus (no car) to the A&E department. They agreed.

What I'd really like to see is a comparison to a&e visit stats for other times, the 72% not seriously unwell sounds completely normal with only 25% of all a&e being admitted

My guess from the number of times I've sat in children's A&E is admittance is less common than 25%. The vast majority of children I've noticed aren't admitted because you see them going home after being seen. However that might be because more serious cases tend not to be the ones you end up chatting with!

I can't find definite information overall, but have found Nuffield Trust research into Emergency admissions

Where to quote from page 17 (bottom)
"In 2015/16, there were over 6.3 million A&E attendances by children and young people, 11 per cent of which resulted in an emergency admission."

I have only skim read the document though, so maybe I've missed something.

m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/nhs-test-and-trace-lost-covid-tests_uk_60d48f44e4b0c101fc857eeb?utm_source=upday&utm_medium=referral

The many and varied failures of Test and Trace.

Am very glad to hear they are investigating ways of making it easier to register LFT results.

Personal opinion only:

I am actually not sure if the Huffington Post's article is helpful. I feel it focuses on wrong things and distracts efforts and attention from items that really matter.

I agree that reporting LFT results should be easier. However - we need to set realistic expectations. Many (in fact, most) people with negative LFTs are not going to bother even if reporting the result only requires a single click of the button. This is just human nature.

We can either decide to spend time and effort on tracing and tracking "missing" tests or we can apply broad brush assumptions and estimate the total number of tests used based on (i) reported positive LFTs and (ii) general Covid prevalence in the population (e.g. taken from ONS studies). As long as the estimated number is directionally in line with the number of tests sent out (i.e. it is 50% lower, not 99% lower), we should be willing to accept the system as "fit for purposes".

But I haven’t seen anyone making that estimate (which presumably could also be backed up by some ONS surveying), @wintertravel1980.

But I haven’t seen anyone making that estimate (which presumably could also be backed up by some ONS surveying)...

Yes, I agree - either ONS or Track and Trace or PHE need to try and do this analysis.

I am just concerned we will end up with another unhelpful quantitative "target" (like Hancock's project from last spring - was it 100,000 PCR tests a day by the end of April 2020?) and start wasting resources instead of looking at the big picture.

I can't envisage why anybody would bother doing them to then ignore the result and swan about infecting others, it would be totally illogical. I can envisage a load of scenarios of them not getting registered that don't matter; someone does 5 LFTs but only reports one as positive / negative, or spilled coffee on one, or didn't report 30 negative tests, or rushed off to get a confirming PCR without registering one, or still have 3 in the cupboard to use (me in the last one!). I can see how politically it can be used to say everything's out of control, but if the point was to get more people picking up on infection before symptoms and it would be naive to expect them all to be registered.

The system would be easier if it stored details of all the people on your account and assumed today's date (or change it), plus keep you logged in to quickly scan the QR code and select person, select status, submit.

I upload the kids LFT results to their school portal, but stopped recording them on NHS ages ago because it annoyed me how crap their system is. Obviously I would tell NHS if they ever get a positive, but until then it’s really only school who need to know. I know plenty of other parents doing the same.

I can't envisage why anybody would bother doing them to then ignore the result and swan about infecting others, it would be totally illogical

No, but there's no actual evidence that people are doing them at all, it would be a stunningly expensive waste of money is the distribution in schools etc. push them to people who do nothing with the test at all, maybe put it in a cupboard, maybe straight in the bin. That is the risk here, a massive waste of money that could be spent elsewhere.

Agree with all the above.

Does anyone know, have the rules around isolation if a second /third etc household member tests positive just as your own isolation is ending changed? I thought it used to be that you didn’t have to continue isolating, just the most recently infected person, or was I wrong about that?

Just heard of a family where DS was pos, then DM and DD a few days later, then 10 days later DF and they seem to think they all have to continue isolating - am not sure if this is TT advice they’ve received or not though.

BBC still has that 2030 chart showing when diff members’ isolation ends: have looked here and it isn’t mentioned now, either way.:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-stay-at-home-guidance/stay-at-home-guidance-for-households-with-possible-coronavirus-covid-19-infection

"In England, the percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) continued to increase in the week ending 19 June 2021; we estimate that 122,500 people within the community population in England had COVID-19 (95% credible interval: 103,900 to 142,500), equating to around 1 in 440 people."

Also 0.7% year 12 to age 24 are now positive (1 in 43)

www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/25june2021

oops sorry 1 in 143 typo

@JanFebAnyMonth

Does anyone know, have the rules around isolation if a second /third etc household member tests positive just as your own isolation is ending changed? I thought it used to be that you didn’t have to continue isolating, just the most recently infected person, or was I wrong about that?

Just heard of a family where DS was pos, then DM and DD a few days later, then 10 days later DF and they seem to think they all have to continue isolating - am not sure if this is TT advice they’ve received or not though.

It depends if they had finished their 10 days, even one day of freedom in the middle puts DS back into isolation. It's a bit daft, anyone who's had a positive test should be free at 10 days unless they still have a fever, and for at least a few months after.

@SecretKeeper1

I upload the kids LFT results to their school portal, but stopped recording them on NHS ages ago because it annoyed me how crap their system is. Obviously I would tell NHS if they ever get a positive, but until then it’s really only school who need to know. I know plenty of other parents doing the same.

Same here. But tbh even if I got a positive one, if I thought I actually had covid I would just isolate my family and not entirely sure I would want T&T to know. I certainly wouldn't want my family to be hassled by the T&T people, I'd let the appropriate people know and trust them to make the right decisions.

It's a bit daft, anyone who's had a positive test should be free at 10 days unless they still have a fever, and for at least a few months after

What about false positives?

What about this incentivising catching covid?
If I knew I'd only have to isolate once, I'd go out of my way to catch covid and get it over and done with at roughly a time of my choosing.

True false positives with PCR tests are very, very rare. ONS previously ran estimates and the number was ridiculously low (much less than 3 in 10,000 for LFTs).

Most of so called "false positive" cases relate to historic infections with PCR tests picking up virus debris. It does not mean the person being tested has never been infected - they were but it might have been weeks/months ago.

@wintertravel1980

True false positives with PCR tests are very, very rare. ONS previously ran estimates and the number was ridiculously low (much less than 3 in 10,000 for LFTs).

Most of so called "false positive" cases relate to historic infections with PCR tests picking up virus debris. It does not mean the person being tested has never been infected - they were but it might have been weeks/months ago.

Most of so called "false positive" cases relate to historic infections with PCR tests picking up virus debris.

I've seen this claimed, but never any proof.

I'd have thought false +ve's with PCR's were more down to sample contamination.

It is not scientific proof but it may be useful to compare two different views.

1. ONS study on Covid prevalence in the community. The latest numbers seem to indicate that our current levels are close to mid-April.

1. Graph from the Covid dashboard with actual Covid cases (which suggests that the numbers have gone up by a factor of 2 or 3).

We may be getting better at testing but are we, really?

Previously we have also seen that ONS numbers (based on PRR testing) were very slow to drop in January even though all other indicators suggested numbers were going down very rapidly.

We know ONS now tests most of the people once a month (rather than once a week). It appears likely that PCR tests might indeed be picking up old infections (cases with "low viral load") and, as a result, underestimate the speed of cases increasing/dropping.

We may be getting better at testing but are we, really?

The change to PCR every close contact can easily produce a 2-3 increase in cases detected.

The change to PCR every close contact can easily produce a 2-3 increase in cases detected.

Hmm... perhaps, but:

• The secondary attack rate for Delta within households is now estimated at 12% (i.e. 88% of household members do not get infected);
• The secondary attack rate for other close contacts is 6.6% (i.e. 93.4% do not get infected).

(page 29)

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/996740/Variants_of_Concern_VOC_Technical_Briefing_17.pdf

On average, we need to test 8 household contacts of each known case to find another confirmed infection (100/12).

I am sure there is a meaningful impact on case numbers coming from the targeted testing but intuitively it may add 40-60% to the baseline numbers (rather than 200-300%).

So each case in a household of 14 people or has well over 20 close contacts outside the household or a combination - and that includes people who are fully isolated whilst having it? That seems remarkably high!

What's gone wrong with my maths - R of 1.5 against those attack rates?