Data, Stats, Daily Numbers started 14th November 2021

[boys3]

Welcome to the DATA thread.

Our preference is for actual, data driven and analytical contributions.
Please try to keep discussion focused on these

Our links below probably need a refresh ready for the festive season,. so all reasonable suggestions welcome.

UK govt press conferences slides & data www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasets-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conferences#history
PHE Variants of Concern Technical Briefings www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-novel-sars-cov-2-variant-variant-of-concern-20201201
PHE Vaccine efficacy www.gov.uk/government/publications/phe-monitoring-of-the-effectiveness-of-covid-19-vaccination
SAGE : Minutes and Models www.gov.uk/government/collections/scientific-evidence-supporting-the-government-response-to-coronavirus-covid-19
Data Dashboard coronavirus.data.gov.uk/ includes R estimates
PHE Weekly Flu & Covid Surveiilance Reports 2021-22 Season www.gov.uk/government/statistics/national-flu-and-covid-19-surveillance-reports-2021-to-2022-season
Dashboard Vaccine Map to MSOA level coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/interactive-map/vaccinations
Covid 19 Genomics www.cogconsortium.uk/tools-analysis/public-data-analysis-2/
Sanger Genome Maps & Data covid19.sanger.ac.uk/lineages/raw
UCL Virus Watch ucl-virus-watch.net/
NHS Vaccination data www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-vaccinations/
Sewage www.gov.uk/government/publications/wastewater-testing-coverage-data-for-19-may-2021-emhp-programme/wastewater-testing-coverage-data-for-the-environmental-monitoring-for-health-protection-emhp-programme.
Sewage reports www.gov.uk/government/publications/monitoring-of-sars-cov-2-rna-in-england-wastewater-monthly-statistics-june-2021
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 MSOA Map English deaths www.england.nhs.uk/statistics/statistical-work-areas/covid-19-daily-deaths/

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/

Latest data unpick from John Burn-Murdoch:
mobile.twitter.com/jburnmurdoch/status/1467270450111787012

@MRex

On the debate, there is surely a place for every scientist's voice. Nobody has got the analysis 100% correct. I've criticised members of iSage, but I still read them to see what they found and to consider their opinion. Sometimes I disagree with members of Sage too, certainly I've disagreed with JCVI many times. Things move quickly and it takes time for researched and peer reviewed facts to emerge, there's a place for every logical thought. When they screw up, you can chuckle if you dislike Pagel or wince if you like her, either way take it as a reminder that nobody is correct all the time. I believe we should take everyone's data, throw a pinch of salt at anyone's analysis and come to our own considered conclusions.

Thing is, if we're not scientists specialising in those areas, how can we disagree or agree with any confidence?

@oneglassandpuzzled - if you don't feel informed enough for an opinion on specific topics then that's ok. Many of us will read a range of opinions, ideally backed up by some sort of data, and then decide on balance what opinion seems to have the most evidence at a given time.

OneGlass yes in some cases full information would be needed, and even then a good understanding too for it to be valuable.

I think there's a difference between scientific method and scientists. The scientific method involves looking at evidence objectively and figuring out what's going on. Two scientists might both follow this approach and reach somewhat different conclusions based on how they interpret uncertain evidence or different specialities, but they can discuss their differences and hopefully reach a better evidenced view between them.

Scientists, however, are people. Some people make their minds up about things first and then look for evidence to support that view. This is especially the case when they think it's vital that they convince others of something that matters - such as how a government reacts to covid. Having a PhD doesn't magically make you into a different type of person. Some of the scientists on Twitter I feel only ever post in one direction - either they are trying to make everyone take covid more seriously, or less so. But if they only ever share stuff that fits this existing mission I don't think they're being very objective about interpreting new evidence coming out in a fast changing situation. The ones you follow I think are those whose posts are both positive and worrying at different times.

I do think it's a bit more nuanced, more about any awareness of typical slant and correction accordingly. I love John Burn-Murdoch, but he's certainly an optimist, as am I. Christina Pagel is certainly a pessimist, which is in large part what I dislike. Both have presented interesting and different information at various times, which is useful and separately interpretable regardless of the opinions attached (which I personally find interesting, I just read them with an awareness of their typical slant).

@Firefliess

I think there's a difference between scientific method and scientists. The scientific method involves looking at evidence objectively and figuring out what's going on. Two scientists might both follow this approach and reach somewhat different conclusions based on how they interpret uncertain evidence or different specialities, but they can discuss their differences and hopefully reach a better evidenced view between them.

Scientists, however, are people. Some people make their minds up about things first and then look for evidence to support that view. This is especially the case when they think it's vital that they convince others of something that matters - such as how a government reacts to covid. Having a PhD doesn't magically make you into a different type of person. Some of the scientists on Twitter I feel only ever post in one direction - either they are trying to make everyone take covid more seriously, or less so. But if they only ever share stuff that fits this existing mission I don't think they're being very objective about interpreting new evidence coming out in a fast changing situation. The ones you follow I think are those whose posts are both positive and worrying at different times.

This is a good post.

I have appreciated some Twitter links - Mano put one on another thread. Dry facts, data, no attempt to convince. I will take to those more than some names often quoted.

John Burn-Murdoch may tend towards optimism but he does share stuff that's worrying too. Christina Pagel less so - I don't recall ever seeing her post something that could be construed as good news. I think she'd be uneasy doing so in case people used it as an excuse to relax measures and she'd worry she'd be responsible for this (and hence for people dying from covid) It's an understandable and very human way to be - but I don't think it's compatible with looking at scientific evidence objectively - at least not when life is lived on Twitter.

@Firefliess

John Burn-Murdoch may tend towards optimism but he does share stuff that's worrying too. Christina Pagel less so - I don't recall ever seeing her post something that could be construed as good news. I think she'd be uneasy doing so in case people used it as an excuse to relax measures and she'd worry she'd be responsible for this (and hence for people dying from covid) It's an understandable and very human way to be - but I don't think it's compatible with looking at scientific evidence objectively - at least not when life is lived on Twitter.

Did a simple search on twitter

"this says that lateral flow tests are working fine with Omicron (at least for this sample!). This is good news."

mobile.twitter.com/chrischirp/status/1464961062608982016

Ok, that's a kind of positive comment but on a very specific issue (and really not a controversial on) But does she ever post anything to suggest that overall things might not be as bad as feared? Evidence emerges all the time, some good, some bad.

@Firefliess

Ok, that's a kind of positive comment but on a very specific issue (and really not a controversial on) But does she ever post anything to suggest that overall things might not be as bad as feared? Evidence emerges all the time, some good, some bad.

She does indeed:

Prof. Christina Pagel
@chrischirp
Some good news from PHE's Friday Delta tech briefing update: two sublineages of Delta called AY.1 and AY.2 do not seem to be any more worrying that Delta in terms of transmissibility or vax resistance.

Another thing I'd like to see (although my last comment went down like a lead balloon ) is more scientists retweeting previous things they got wrong, what led them to think that & what's changed since.

Quite a few epidemiologists I follow do this, and I think it's really useful. And a good exercise in science communications & public engagement that things are often not right or wrong - it's just the evidence has changed or you were predicting with a degree of uncertainty (the original statement on masks is a good one).

But does she ever post anything to suggest that overall things might not be as bad as feared?

A novel virus pandemic is about as bad as anything can get short of the whole human race being wiped out. Some people might be afraid of that, but it’s not particularly reassuring that it’s unlikely to happen.
No one is obliged to be optimistic for the sake of it - or pessimistic either. People are free to express their own views.

@riveted1 Yes you're right, that one is a positive comment. Maybe she's a bit more objective at times as least than I've given her credit for (she does post and retweet a LOT though!) Agree completely that it's great to see people reflecting about things they got wrong or where they've changed their minds.

[quote Firefliess]@riveted1 Yes you're right, that one is a positive comment. Maybe she's a bit more objective at times as least than I've given her credit for (she does post and retweet a LOT though!) Agree completely that it's great to see people reflecting about things they got wrong or where they've changed their minds. [/quote]
Honestly, if you do a search there are many examples

Prof. Christina Pagel
@chrischirp
so some good news: cases in some of the new variant hotspots are now coming down - especially in Bolton.

I imagine that if someone was to bother to do a twitter analysis, overall her tweets would rank more pessimistic & cautionary than other epidemiologists - and in general I think most of iSAGE would be in this direction.

But that isn't the same as her being biased or not objective about the situation (not saying you said this, but have seen comments before with this kind of view!)

You could put them on a spectrum and see that some tend to either end

I don’t think that’s unusual given they are just as human as anyone

It’s why groups are set up with rigour and processes and transparency with accountability

Some groups don’t have this but generally the top advisory groups do

Yes I have to say, during a pandemic, living in a country governed by proven liars and with whose political ideology I do not agree, I tend to listen more to those who are worried, that seems the logical place for me!

@JanglyBeads

Yes I have to say, during a pandemic, living in a country governed by proven liars and with whose political ideology I do not agree, I tend to listen more to those who are worried, that seems the logical place for me!

I think though this is one of the problems.

I don't like the Govt and never voted for them. I do think they have made many missteps in the pandemic.

But I try and ignore my political leanings when coming to conclusions re Covid.

You will find me getting more angry at the party in Downing Street last Christmas rather than the lifting of all restrictions in July. Even though I have continued to wear my mask.

I don't have Twitter any more so I only tend to see what many are seeing from links here.

I do think some fail to move with the times. Covid is constantly evolving and so is the public perception to it. Pagel is one of the ones i find too risk adverse. I tend to think she focuses only on Covid and keeping cases low, without giving enough consideration to how devastating that is to us all, especially children.

But as said above, I don't have Twitter, so that conclusion may be very wrong.

I do like Murdoch, James Ward etc as they are very good at analysing data but can also be objective.

I was acknowledging in the post that I’m affected by my ideologies.

We all are.

Trisha Greenhalgh is another eminent scientists whose behaviour on Twitter is a bit alarming!

She retweets really awful fearmongering accounts which have been called out again and again, people making names for themselves when they are not qualified in the field and just want to whip up panic and anxiety for their own personal profit. Yes, I'm talking about Eric Ding.

You would hope that as a scientist she would be discriminating about who she retweets, and also considerate of the mental health of her Twitter followers. But, nope!

Just yesterday, she retweeted this misleading/alarmist account of the superspreader event in Norway:

twitter.com/DrKatrin_Rabiei/status/1467137459251298309

I know "retweets are not endorsements". But still.... Exercise some discretion, eh?

Again the answer is that when it fits her political ideology, the facts and presentation don't matter. It's driven by emotions, not by scientific method.

Is there a rule that people have to be objective?

It is interesting that you use the word 'eminent'. These women are all highly qualified and regarded specialists in their field. You don't have to follow them of course but 'optimism' isn't more objective in and of itself.

So, do we all agree that John Burn Murdoch is reliable?

(I like him!)

What's Greenhalgh's 'political ideology'?