Are Scottish COVID19 rates really 5x lower than the U.K.?

[Y0uCann0tBeSer10us]

The UKSA suggests they might not be.

From the article: “On its claim that prevalence of the virus is five times lower than in England, the Scottish Government said the figure was based on “upper prevalence estimates” for Scotland published by its own statisticians, which was then compared with separate Office for National Statistics (ONS) data.

However, Jamie Jenkins, a former head of health analysis at the ONS, said the comparison was “not ideal” as different methodology had been used for both numbers.

The Scottish figure was based on an epidemiological model, while the statistics for England was based on sample testing of a small number of people, meaning a wider estimated range for infection rates.

Statisticians generally caution against making comparisons when different methodology has been used, and it remains unclear why the Scottish Government used the upper rather than central estimates in its comparisons.

Mr Jenkins said: “I think it would be better and fairer for the Scottish Government to compare their number to the same number for England using a similar epidemiological model.””

Also from the article: “The Scottish Conservatives said the latest ONS data actually suggested 0.025 per cent of people had the virus in England. On Wednesday, Ms Sturgeon claimed the figure for Scotland was 0.028 per cent.” Without comparing like for like it’s hard to know, but rates might not be that different after all.

At best this is a dodgy use of statistics, at worst a cynical attempt to deflect from failings by trying to suggest the Scottish ‘method’ is so much more successful.

And you are just trying to politicise something that is a public health issue. Anything to denigrate the Scots and the SNP. Dammit! I bet if NS said the sun shines out of Boris Johnson's arse and England was the the New Jerusalem people would moan it was her "banging on about independence".

Yep! NS actually losing a lot of SNP support over covid as she has been very explicit that independence has been put on the back burner and she's not willing to think about it just now given the health crisis.

SNP were elected with independence at the heart of their manifesto so I can understand why they're annoyed tbh. Other governments are pushing on with other stuff as well as dealing with covid (brexit anyone?)

TheSandman
Nail. Head. 👍

The First Minister, when asked about independence during a Covid briefing, stopped the journalist before he'd even finished the question, saying it was a public health announcement. She's also stopped the independence committee.

The leader of the union, however, is ploughing on with taking us all out of the EU. But don't worry, we'll be able to buy Australian Tam biscuits (his hideous promo video demonstrating a detachment from reality only matched by Trump). I'm sure his disgustingly tone deaf jokes provide great comfort to the tens of thousands who have lost loved ones and who have and will lose their jobs due to the Tories utter incompetence over Covid and Brexit.

Derxa - the travelling tabby data is nicely presented and gives some nice detailed breakdowns. But, as per my post earlier in this thread and the OP’s point about comparing data, you have to consider the source data the site is using when interpreting those figures, especially if comparing against other countries/other parts of the U.K., who measure and record statistics in a different way.

So, the figure given for COVID deaths in Scotland on that site (2,490) only includes those with a positive test. The national records for Scotland (NRS) gives a figure of 4,173 and that includes all those where COVID was recorded as a cause of death on the death certificate (including cases where the patient had not been tested for COVID).

Both figures can be considered accurate so long as the methods by which they are calculated is clearly stated (which travelling tabby does not do). That’s why the FM is always very careful to say something like “the total number of deaths therefore remains at 2,490. Of course that’s the number under that measurement of patients who test positive through a test.” (FM briefing 10th July), while the NRS state “as of 4th July 4,173 deaths had been registered which mentioned COVID-19” (NRS COVID-19 weekly update 8th July).

I‘m not on one side or the other (and I’m very wary of these Mumsnet threads that have become quite hostile). I’m just uneasy at the way the figure of 2,490 deaths seems to be universally accepted in the media now as the “true” figure, without any caveat that this is according to one particular way of measuring - it seems rather disrespectful to the memory of the other 1,683 people who, according to the clinical assessment of their doctors, died from/with COVID but whose deaths are not acknowledged in this figure.

So, the figure given for COVID deaths in Scotland on that site (2,490) only includes those with a positive test. The national records for Scotland (NRS) gives a figure of 4,173 and that includes all those where COVID was recorded as a cause of death on the death certificate (including cases where the patient had not been tested for COVID).
That's explained on the site.
Confirmed deathsThis is the number of people who have died within 28 days of testing positive for the virus. We can think of this as the absolute minimum number of people who have died from the virus. This figure comes from ScotGov, and is updated daily.

Thanks derxa, I see that now. Makes sense because it’s otherwise a pretty thorough site.

It's also a lot of semantics. She gives a daily number of the "people in hospital with Covid".

That is not the same as the "people in hospital BECAUSE OF Covid" but is widely interpreted as being the same thing.

NS apparently saying that 7/12 new Glasgow infections yesterday were from one care home.

Which will be the reason for not also having a limit on travel for Glasgow in the same way as putting one in d&g I presume or was that just to do with it being further from the border.

I think for clarity , figures given should make it clear where testing has confirmed cases in the community. That's the figure that effects the average person plus it also gives the true story of the tragedy of care homes and if hospital risk.

I think she also said they were asymptomatic, which to me implies routine screening of carers. There is therefore potential for community spill over if they didn’t realise they were infected, although I think asymptomatic people are less likely to spread it. Hopefully track and trace will be on top of people they have come into contact with while out and about.

That's right - asymptomatic people in care homes through the ongoing testing programme.