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

How much money were we saving with Brexit to go to the NHS? 🤔

Kings Fund pages are always a good place for detailed analyses of funding and activity in the NHS. I would link, but there are so many different analyses, it is just worth scrolling around to find one you think may answer your question.

You lot who love a graph should read The Spirit Level, an amazing piece of research into the impacts of social inequality on almost every measure of wellbeing , health and success. Scatter graphs on nearly every page!

Back to more prosaic matters cases in the North East have seen some rapid increases over the past few days.

Comparing the last two seven day periods and using a two day lag.

Rates per 100,000

County Durham. 25 to 93

Darlington 7 to 37 (still below the median in England )

Gateshead 48 to 66

Hartlepool 7 to 64

Middlesborough 31 to 42

Newcastle 69 to 133

North Tyneside. 69 to 149

Northumberland 43 to 115

Redcar 12 to 31 (again below median)

South Tyneside 41 to 81

Stockton 22 to 37 (below median), and

Sunderland 40 to 64

South West also a big movement, albeit from a low base.

at regional level moved from 18 to 46 per 100,000. Still one of the lower rate regions but now above both East of England and South East.

Big increases in particular

Exeter 19 to 52

Bath and NE Somerset 19 to 62

BCP. 19 to 56

Bristol 44 to 96

Cornwall 8 to 70

North Somerset. 18 to 49

South Gloucestershire 17 to 62

Smaller increases but Cheltenham and Gloucester both around the 80 mark.

@boys3

South West also a big movement, albeit from a low base.

at regional level moved from 18 to 46 per 100,000. Still one of the lower rate regions but now above both East of England and South East.

Big increases in particular

Exeter 19 to 52

Bath and NE Somerset 19 to 62

BCP. 19 to 56

Bristol 44 to 96

Cornwall 8 to 70

North Somerset. 18 to 49

South Gloucestershire 17 to 62

Smaller increases but Cheltenham and Gloucester both around the 80 mark.

Hardly surprising considering the influx of visitors at half term.

I’m listening to the press conference. I heard Chris Whitty when asked about what happens on 19th July/going back to normal.

He’s reminding us it won’t be gone and then talks about what is acceptable for us to live with the virus.

Interestingly he said something about the difference between a “death delayed” and a “death averted”.

Perhaps a philosophical question, but Where to draw that line??

@everythingthelighttouches - I would expect a Sage paper on that. Instinctively I think if the impact is on people in end of life care, or life expectancy impact can be measured in months then it's ok, but losing a year or more of life expectancy would be too much. Last year I believe it was measured at 10 years. www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/news/1.5-million-potential-years-of-life-lost-to-covid-19

PHE have released their estimates of vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions:

khub.net/web/phe-national/public-library/-/document_library/v2WsRK3ZlEig/view_file/479607329?_com_liferay_document_library_web_portlet_DLPortlet_INSTANCE_v2WsRK3ZlEig_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fkhub.net%3A443%2Fweb%2Fphe-national%2Fpublic-library%2F-%2Fdocument_library%2Fv2WsRK3ZlEig%2Fview%2F479607266

AZ:

• 71% effective after dose 1
• 92% effective after dose 2

Pfizer:

• 94% effective after dose 1
• 96% effective after dose 2

The averages come very close to 80%/95% previously estimated by James Ward.

Marsha I agree and I also think a gentle intro on fees for people who have not lived here long eg a few weeks etc.

Once paid in for x years have same access as anyone else but with small fees for everyone but the only problems with that is then locking in fees.. Which gov will take advantage of

but losing a year or more of life expectancy would be too much

Lockdown reduces more than a year of life expectancy for the 1.2 million newly inactive people, so I'm not sure I agree with that, we need considerably different set of restrictions than lockdown if it's just a year on smaller numbers than that.

of course this is just Whitty's incompetence at presenting restrictions as without harm.

@sirfredfredgeorge
I don't get this "...1.2 million newly inactive people..." Do you mean ppl who can't be arsed to move? Or the more than 1m ppl with long covid who can't move as before?
Not nitpicking, really don't see what you're referring to.

This is the activity stats that were published by Sport England, there are now 1.2 million more "inactive" people than there were in Feb 2019, the life expectancy reduction from that is huge, but of course some of it is reversible as with any activity based.

If you genuinely think long covid is a problem, you need to be calling for more restrictions, the restrictions we have now are not enough to prevent a majority of unvaccinated getting covid this year - and that's millions of kids where no vaccine is available.

Changes from Mondays for the past 2,5 months.
Date/No of cases/Change from prev monday

13/06/2021 7742 2059
07/06/2021 5683 2300
31/05/2021 3383 944
24/05/2021 2439 460
17/05/2021 1979 -378
10/05/2021 2357 708
03/05/2021 1649 -415
26/04/2021 2064 -899
19/04/2021 2963 -605
12/04/2021 3568 806
05/04/2021 2762 -1892
29/03/2021 4654

too early to tell if today's smaller diff number is a blip or the start of a downward trend. I don't really see why cases of the variant that is more transmissible would start going down when no other boundary condition has changed.....

Interestingly he said something about the difference between a “death delayed” and a “death averted”

So who the fuck are giving the immortality too, why don't we all get the choice?

@TheSunIsStillShining - Thanks, that's useful but the site removed your formatting so I can't read it and presume others want to read it too:
13/06/2021: 7742 / 2059
07/06/2021: 5683 / 2300
31/05/2021: 3383 / 944
24/05/2021: 2439 / 460
17/05/2021: 1979 / -378
10/05/2021: 2357 / 708
03/05/2021: 1649 / -415
26/04/2021: 2064 / -899
19/04/2021: 2963 / -605
12/04/2021: 3568 / 806
05/04/2021: 2762 / -1892
29/03/2021: 4654

Yes it's good to see that slacking in growth, I'm hopeful.

no other boundary condition has changed
Vaccine immunity quite literally grows daily.

@wintertravel1980

PHE have released their estimates of vaccine effectiveness against hospital admissions:

khub.net/web/phe-national/public-library/-/document_library/v2WsRK3ZlEig/view_file/479607329?_com_liferay_document_library_web_portlet_DLPortlet_INSTANCE_v2WsRK3ZlEig_redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fkhub.net%3A443%2Fweb%2Fphe-national%2Fpublic-library%2F-%2Fdocument_library%2Fv2WsRK3ZlEig%2Fview%2F479607266

AZ:

• 71% effective after dose 1
• 92% effective after dose 2

Pfizer:

• 94% effective after dose 1
• 96% effective after dose 2

The averages come very close to 80%/95% previously estimated by James Ward.

It's good data, but some caveats in there.

Firstly, they aren't averages! They are best fits with a margin of error. ANY value in the calculated range is equally valid. The margin of error is there to account for limitations of the data - you can't simply assume that all biases in the data cancel each other out.

Coming back to the data - the single dose Pfizer data has a HUGE margin of error: 46-99%! Presumably because there are very few people in that particular group! I'm not really sure how useful this is given that range!

With AZ, the data is a little better - 51-83% effective at preventing hospitalisation after a single dose. Still quite a margin of error!

It's important to note that if it turns out to be at the lower end of that range - 51%, then given the Delta variant at least doubles the risk of hospitalisation, people with a single jab have about the same level of protection against hospitalisation with the Delta strain as unvaccinated people did against the Kent strain! You can see why they are rushing to get people double jabbed!

Protection after two doses is looking very good with Pfizer - 86-99%. With AZ the margin of error is still quite large for some reason - 75-97%. Got to hope though that the actual figure is at the high end of that range!

@strangeshapedpotato - AZ will have a wider margin of error at the moment because jabs started a month later and with loads of care homes, so early second jabs data isn't particularly reliable for impact on the wider population.
The big margins for first dose are a bit odd and strike me as more "we announced it was as low as 33% for both, now it seems to not be so low, ummm, call it a bigger margin to look less like we panicked".
Am I being unfair?

I genuinely think long covid is a problem. And I would love to see more restrictions in schools to make it safer. Ventilation, masks, smaller class sizes.

@sirfredfredgeorge

but losing a year or more of life expectancy would be too much

Lockdown reduces more than a year of life expectancy for the 1.2 million newly inactive people, so I'm not sure I agree with that, we need considerably different set of restrictions than lockdown if it's just a year on smaller numbers than that.

of course this is just Whitty's incompetence at presenting restrictions as without harm.

more than a year? Where did that claim come from? I find no mention of it in the SE report.

I'd have thought it all depends whether or not people stay inactive and what else they do while inactive (e.g. drink more/put on weight)

I had a very unhealthy 6 months last year (various reasons for that) and would certainly have fallen into this 710,000 - but my activity is now back higher than it's been in years.

Of course if it was mostly in say 50 yr old men that suddenly became inactive, we'd probably have seen a big increase in heart disease.... but the worst hit group seems to have been the 16-24, most of which are likely to return to whatever it was they used to do, as soon as they are able to.

I suspect that the biggest outcome of lockdown will be weight increases - if people don't lose this weight afterwards (ie return to normal), then that's going to have an impact on heart disease figures in the years to come.... but of course so is covid.

@MRex
You are right re:vax, but also a bit off. The ones socializing without any restrictions -kids- are not getting vaccinated. And 20 somethings are just getting their first jabs, so I'd say too early for that to be kicking in.

And thanks for the formatting, didn't check if it carried through.

[quote MRex]@strangeshapedpotato - AZ will have a wider margin of error at the moment because jabs started a month later and with loads of care homes, so early second jabs data isn't particularly reliable for impact on the wider population.
The big margins for first dose are a bit odd and strike me as more "we announced it was as low as 33% for both, now it seems to not be so low, ummm, call it a bigger margin to look less like we panicked".
Am I being unfair?[/quote]
Am I being unfair

Yes - I think so lol. I'm fairly certain the scientists who wrote the paper will be using standard statistical formulas to determine the error ranges.

So firstly they had a small data set - 166 patients.

Secondly one of the values used to calculate the Vaccine efficacy was itself subject to margins of error - the protection against symptomatic disease determined in a separate paper.
Multiplying together two numbers each with a significant margin of error gives rise to these huge ranges in the final figure!

I actually think all you can draw from the data is that vaccines still have respectable performance against this variant - but equally it demonstrates that reliance on vaccines may not be enough in the event of a second wave.

What might be a bit of good news is that it looks like after a doubling from 2k/day in England to 4.5k it seems to be holding at that level for almost a week now.
This is looking at case specimen date and omitting the last 3 days.

I am pessimistic a bit because when I look around I see careless people who just can't be arsed to distance, wear a mask, etc... which inevitably will lead to numbers going up. Really hope I'm wrong though...

And this Freedom day bullshit didn't help. If we look at the restrictions that would have been lifted: they actually don't make much of a difference to the majority of the people, I think. And yet expectation was set that as of the 21st the virus will disappear and life will be back to normal. They made the same mistake in december and we saw where that led us. Just hoping that vaccs and good weather will help us out.

Firstly, they aren't averages!

I was referring to the "blended"/"average" efficacy estimates produced by James Ward (80%/95% across Pfizer and AZ), not the central points in the PHE modelled results.

The reality is it was possible to come up with a pretty good model for vaccine effectiveness without having all the data inputs. Some information (e.g .vaccination profile of the UK population and pre-vaccine CFR by age group) is much more important than other (e.g. exact age distribution of Delta cases).

James Ward's analysis produced numbers that ended up very close to the PHE results.

I am aware the confidence intervals are quite wide but they will narrow as we have more data. In the mean time, most people (including scientists) will be using modelled central points/means as the best available proxies.