Data, Stats and Daily Numbers started 18th January 2022

[boys3]

Welcome to another instalment of the DATA thread.

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

UK govt press conferences slides & data www.gov.uk/government/collections/slides-and-datasets-to-accompany-coronavirus-press-conferences#history
UKHSA Variants of Concern Technical Briefings www.gov.uk/government/publications/investigation-of-sars-cov-2-variants-technical-briefing
UKHSA Vaccine efficacy www.gov.uk/guidance/monitoring-reports-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
UKHSA 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/

Summary of SPI-M report
twitter.com/cfinnecy/status/1492213392681181184

"SPI-M-O currently estimates that a combination of behavioural change...and mitigations (e.g. testing, self-isolation) are currently reducing transmission by 20–45%"

"There is significant potential for transmission to increase if behaviours revert rapidly to pre-pandemic norms and mitigations are removed (medium confidence)."

"SPI-B say removing access to free testing will probably impact on other precautionary behaviour and make harder to assess risk. They also think lifting of restriction should be accompanied by clear messaging about the scientific rational."

A summary of points from the latest Sage minutes, which reflect on the SPI-M report, from the very insightful John Roberts:

twitter.com/john_actuary/status/1492207989499084803

"Current behaviour is estimated to be suppressing transmission by between 20% & 45%. (That would suggest a complete return to pre-pandemic behaviour would increase transmission by between 25% & 80%.)"

"It notes the benefit to transmission of "self regulation" of behaviour and the risks if reduced testing is available (and later comments on impact of charging for tests, particularly for those who are or living with CV people)"

"It notes that the next variant might not be as mild as Omicron appears to be, and could emerge very quickly. The benefit of the ONS infection survey in monitoring for such an event is noted."

"The impact on the CV of removing self-isolation requirements is noted, along with comments regarding changes in attitude towards circulating whilst having COVID symptoms following the removal of restrictions."

"The situation update notes the broadly positive direction of key metrics re cases/adm'ns etc, which will be familiar to most readers, and which is the starting point for the expectation of further relaxations in rules and other changes discussed"

So so bored with arguing with covid minimisers whose business interests depend on people forgetting about covid.

I sympathise with the sentiment. Covid has been going on a long time now for everyone.

But people with business interests aren’t somehow disqualified from the debate. (Are they?) We all have skin in this game. While businesses themselves don’t catch the virus, they are in varying degrees vulnerable, and have an important role to play in society, not least generating the money to pay for our healthcare system.

Estonian study on increased mortality risks up to a year after infection:

twitter.com/kristafischer16/status/1492200229961179137?s=21

I do worry that by creating the term "extremely clinically vulnerable" people classed as this have been given an elevated sense of the danger that covid poses to them, which hasn't really been recallibrated for vaccines or the newer drugs and treatment that are now available. If you look at the Alama covid risk tool (alama.org.uk/covid-19-medical-risk-assessment) you can see that most conditions that class you as ECV give you about the same risk as a healthy person 5-15 years older (or as a woman the same age, if you're a man) The risk of dying currently if you're a vaccinated ECV 25 year old comes out at about 1 in 30,000 (same as a healthy 40 year old - 0.07% pre vaccines, now down by about 95% due to vaccines). If you're 75 the risk of dying from covid is around 1 in 250 (same as a healthy 80 year old - 8% risk pre vaccines, now down to about 0.4%) In both cases this is less a tenth of the risk of dying from all causes during the next year. (See ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rate-by-age-group-in-england-and-wales?country=~England+and+Wales) But looking at some of the content on social media or the Guardian, it seems that many ECV people really believe that they're "likely" to die if they catch it, and are being thrown to the wolves by the ending of mask mandates.

Is the term "extremely" clinically vulnerable really the right term to describe these kinds of risks?

@JanglyBeads

Marsha, I meant to highlight that the feelings of "the majority" are not the most important thing here. The health, and indeed, right to life, of society's most vulnerable are of at least equal importance.

Generally health measures to work on the premise of greater good for the majority.

So no I don’t agree.

What was needed when the healthcare system was at risk will be different to what will happen next when that threat passes.

It was always the overwhelming of healthcare that dictated the measures, not the risk to a smaller proportion of population.

@Firefliess

I do worry that by creating the term "extremely clinically vulnerable" people classed as this have been given an elevated sense of the danger that covid poses to them, which hasn't really been recallibrated for vaccines or the newer drugs and treatment that are now available. If you look at the Alama covid risk tool (alama.org.uk/covid-19-medical-risk-assessment) you can see that most conditions that class you as ECV give you about the same risk as a healthy person 5-15 years older (or as a woman the same age, if you're a man) The risk of dying currently if you're a vaccinated ECV 25 year old comes out at about 1 in 30,000 (same as a healthy 40 year old - 0.07% pre vaccines, now down by about 95% due to vaccines). If you're 75 the risk of dying from covid is around 1 in 250 (same as a healthy 80 year old - 8% risk pre vaccines, now down to about 0.4%) In both cases this is less a tenth of the risk of dying from all causes during the next year. (See ourworldindata.org/grapher/death-rate-by-age-group-in-england-and-wales?country=~England+and+Wales) But looking at some of the content on social media or the Guardian, it seems that many ECV people really believe that they're "likely" to die if they catch it, and are being thrown to the wolves by the ending of mask mandates.

Is the term "extremely" clinically vulnerable really the right term to describe these kinds of risks?

Interesting, I’m not sure about the term but I agree with needing to recalibrate risk

[quote JanglyBeads]Estonian study on increased mortality risks up to a year after infection:

twitter.com/kristafischer16/status/1492200229961179137?s=21[/quote]
That's interesting, and suggests that the overall death toll from covid could be somewhat higher than official figures show. That makes sense for those who get very ill from it - spending weeks in ICU is inevitably going to have a serious strain on your body. Less intuitive why there would be an elevated risk for community cases - the increased risk they find after the first 35 days is only in the over 60s. I'm not sure what testing was like in Estonia in 2020 (when the data was collected) but wonder whether they might have been testing care home residents a lot more than other people (like we were doing early on) which could mean that the covid positive group were disproportionately in care homes and so less healthy to start with? They do seem to have tried to control for health service usage overall though. The data is all, of course, pre vaccination, so we don't know what impact that will have had on the severity of longer term impacts of covid.

Current behaviour is estimated to be suppressing transmission by between 20% & 45%

How? Why have they estimated that, what is their evidence - the Modellers make estimates to push things into their models, but they never justify them. What's the reason for that big a drop? and is it a drop from an R0 of Omicron of over 10 in England (based on the claims of "more infectious of each variant, I've seen no estimate of R0 of omicron), cos bringing it down by 45% doesn't help a whole lot if it's still high enough that "almost everyone is going to get it" Which it certainly is now.

I simply don't understand people calling for more of the same restrictions which are failing to stop spread, call for more if you want the spread stopped, but I simply don't understand the argument for restrictions which don't achieve an aim. Does anyone give a justification?

@Firefliess

@JanglyBeads

Thought this was interesting

www.science.org/content/article/covid-19-takes-serious-toll-heart-health-full-year-after-recovery

"The authors say their findings suggest millions of COVID-19 survivors could suffer long-term consequences, straining health systems for years to come. “Governments and health systems around the world should be prepared to deal with the likely significant contribution of the COVID-19 pandemic to a rise in the burden of cardiovascular diseases,” they write in the paper"

Generally health measures to work on the premise of greater good for the majority.

You need to add “while not putting the vulnerable at risk”

Perhaps Gandhi is out of fashion now, but he said that “the true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members’.” I think that’s a precept worth trying to live up to.

You need to add “while not putting the vulnerable at risk”

The costly measures were put in place to stop healthcare being overwhelmed, not ‘for the vulnerable’ as has been posted whenever someone says ‘we’ve been doing this for the vulnerable for two years’

Also what do you want in place and for how long?

Sensible measures such as access to testing, isolation if positive, face coverings in crowded places while infection rates are high, ventilation in schools, working at home where practical and sensible and so on.
As someone working in education and vulnerable on account of age and underlying medical conditions, I’m fairly relaxed myself - have worked throughout - but am concerned for others.

And for as long as necessary.

@borntobequiet

And for as long as necessary.

What’s the number or change that makes it unnecessary?

What’s the number or change that makes it unnecessary?

I think that’s for the experts to decide.

@lonelyplanet
Complete anecdata - NDN is a teacher. Last week his school had 90+ off (staff and pupils). Oh and the school has just over 500 pupils to put it in context. He said they're struggling for cover.

@borntobequiet

What’s the number or change that makes it unnecessary?

I think that’s for the experts to decide.

Given the brief / strategy was don’t let the healthcare system get overwhelmed then once that threat passes measures are no longer necessary.

That’s why it will all end - because the cost is absolutely huge and the objective has been met.

I know some will welcome this and others won’t, but like lockdowns there isn’t much choice re having to accept each stage. Although on a personal level some changes could be made which wasn’t possible during harshest restrictions.

Well I’ll always defer to an obvious expert.

@borntobequiet

Well I’ll always defer to an obvious expert.

Who are you talking about - which expert?

Do you think the strategy was do not overwhelm healthcare or something else?

I thought it public knowledge so not sure what I’ve missed that you think it’s not

@sirfredfredgeorge

Current behaviour is estimated to be suppressing transmission by between 20% & 45%

How? Why have they estimated that, what is their evidence - the Modellers make estimates to push things into their models, but they never justify them. What's the reason for that big a drop? and is it a drop from an R0 of Omicron of over 10 in England (based on the claims of "more infectious of each variant, I've seen no estimate of R0 of omicron), cos bringing it down by 45% doesn't help a whole lot if it's still high enough that "almost everyone is going to get it" Which it certainly is now.

I simply don't understand people calling for more of the same restrictions which are failing to stop spread, call for more if you want the spread stopped, but I simply don't understand the argument for restrictions which don't achieve an aim. Does anyone give a justification?

I think this is a really good point and it was one I made myself when measures were dropped in July.

There is no point in retaining/implementing measures that are doing little or nothing to stop transmission. Either increase measures so they are doing something or get rid of them, no point faffing about in the middle getting the worst of both approaches.

I think the focus of the last two years has led a lot of people to believe that we actually can "control" how a virus spreads, and that we should do this to protect those who are most vulnerable to it. But we can't, and never could, do anything that prevented people catching it on a permanent basis by restricting their contact with one another. Restricting human contact simply slowed it down - but those who don't catch covid one day are still vulnerable to it the next day, and every day thereafter. Slowing it down might have made sense at times when the NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed, or before vaccines were developed. But after that, there's very little further benefit in slowing it down, and a lot of cost. The vulnerable can't be protected from catching it forever, unless they live as hermits for the rest of their lives. And delaying the time when they first encounter covid brings little benefit and, for most of them, growing costs to mental health and wellbeing.

I really nice table showing risk of hospitalisation by age sex and number of risk factors twitter.com/kwadwo777/status/1492331649966739457?t=8UKUIFidDnSz3nMRe1vQ8w&s=19

@Firefliess

I think the focus of the last two years has led a lot of people to believe that we actually can "control" how a virus spreads, and that we should do this to protect those who are most vulnerable to it. But we can't, and never could, do anything that prevented people catching it on a permanent basis by restricting their contact with one another. Restricting human contact simply slowed it down - but those who don't catch covid one day are still vulnerable to it the next day, and every day thereafter. Slowing it down might have made sense at times when the NHS was at risk of being overwhelmed, or before vaccines were developed. But after that, there's very little further benefit in slowing it down, and a lot of cost. The vulnerable can't be protected from catching it forever, unless they live as hermits for the rest of their lives. And delaying the time when they first encounter covid brings little benefit and, for most of them, growing costs to mental health and wellbeing.

Delaying infection can have benefits though as understanding of the virus improves with time along with vaccines and treatment options. Hopefully in the future they'll understand more about how to prevent the organ damage and other long term consequences.

@containsnuts That was very true at the start when we were dealing with a brand new virus. It is still true today, but there's been huge progress already and likely to be more, but at a slower pace in future. It may also be better for people to catch it sooner after a booster, to catch Omicron rather than a future more virulent strain, or to catch it while they're younger than they'll be in the future. So I think the balance of costs and benefits of trying to slow down spread weighs quite differently now.