Coronavirus in the UK - news, lockdown and discussion

[Anju]

27% increase in cases over a week, with testing down 2%.

Also this

"In an indication that the NHS may be again facing an increased demand from people with Covid-19, it was the first time there had been a notable increase (+34%) in positive tests in hospitals or at the sites of outbreaks, known as “pillar one”, since the NHS test and trace launched on 28 May."

Lockdown fears for Birmingham amid sharp rise in UK coronavirus cases

City sees ‘extremely concerning’ rise to 30 cases per 100,000 as positive tests in Britain hit highest level since mid-June

www.theguardian.com

Going on observed behaviour in my area I'm pretty pessimistic about the coming winter months. Pubs, bars, restaurants are all really busy with no social distancing. Mask wearing seems to be declining steadily. Virtually none in small shops and even our local big Tesco had people in every aisle not wearing any face covering when I went on Monday.

 

[elbows]

Here are the weekly reports that story is based on, and the most recent reports data that includes the pillar 1 stuff they mention.

Weekly statistics for NHS Test and Trace (England)

Experimental statistics from the NHS Test and Trace service and related documents.

www.gov.uk

In pillar 1, there was an increase of 34% in positive cases compared to the previous week. This is the first week there has been a notable increase in positive cases in pillar 1 since Test and Trace launched.

I see they cant even get their reports right, putting percentage in brackets for those column headings and then not including any percentages in brackets.

 

[Steel Icarus]

Busy day of enrolment yesterday. And terrifyingly blasé. Social distancing lines all marked for the students queuing outside the hall and those inside, and any number of staff clustered together chatting.

One lady directing students to stay on the social distancing lines, when they reached her she stood looking over their shoulder to ask who they were etc.

I was also handed a radio which me and another staff member were expected to share.

I mean this is before thousands of students descend on the place...

 

[thismoment]

At the school near me, I saw staff directing students to the specific entrance that they should use when they collect their results and it looks like they have markings inside but then again the students were all hugging and kissing outside when they met each other

 

[elbows]

I'm just starting to read this weeks surveillance report. Only got as far as the summary but there are several things of note:

Firstly they offer an explanation for the rise in pillar 1 positive tests:

Pillar 1 positivity increased in the East Midlands, which is likely to be linked to testing in a factory outbreak.

I guess if thats the story we will have to abandon our presumptions about which sorts of teting are part of which pillar? Since factory outbreaks are not what we've come to think of as something that will be tested under pillar 1.

The other thing I have spotted so far is that in previous weeks I have pointed out that despite all the talk of younger people being behind the rise in detected cases, this weekly reports were still saying that it was the 80+ age group with the highest positivity rate. Well, that has now changed in this weeks report:

Case rates were highest in the 15-44 year age group.

There is also some excess mortality showing up in an age group!

Excess mortality was observed in the 25 to 44 years age group in week 32

I dont have an explanation for that at this stage, I will look into it when I can.

 

[Thora]

On the test & trace system - the landlord of a local pub was apparently called by t&t today and informed that a customer who was there on Saturday tested positive. They said the customer was only there for 30 minutes but wouldn’t tell the landlord a name or what time It was apparently just a call “for information“ and the pub didn’t need to do anything, get tests, give names. Is this really how it is supposed to work?

 

[existentialist]

On the test & trace system - the landlord of a local pub was apparently called by t&t today and informed that a customer who was there on Saturday tested positive. They said the customer was only there for 30 minutes but wouldn’t tell the landlord a name or what time It was apparently just a call “for information“ and the pub didn’t need to do anything, get tests, give names. Is this really how it is supposed to work?

If it is how it's supposed to work, it shouldn't be. That just makes a mockery of the whole thing. Not that it wasn't already making a mockery of itself...

 

[Brainaddict]

On the test & trace system - the landlord of a local pub was apparently called by t&t today and informed that a customer who was there on Saturday tested positive. They said the customer was only there for 30 minutes but wouldn’t tell the landlord a name or what time It was apparently just a call “for information“ and the pub didn’t need to do anything, get tests, give names. Is this really how it is supposed to work?

Wow. An australian friend was telling me their contact tracing program tries to find out which lifts people stood in and who shared them. Obviously its compulsory for bars to register who is there. And if you're meant to be quarantining the military are quite likely to come to your house to check that you're in. The UK's half-arsed nonsense may be worse than useless - giving people some false sense of security that the government is doing contact tracing when all they're doing is lining their friends' pockets.

 

[elbows]

Here are the graphs relating to the excess mortality stuff, taken from the report I already linked to in previous post.

The similar colours used for several entries on these graphs make them a bit of a nightmare. I'm thinking the spike in the regional one is for the South West and the North West. But the age group one is doing my head in a bit because if it were not for the narrative about 25-45 year group, I would think it was the 80+ green one that was on the rise, not the 25-44 one. I'm going to have to search for underlying data because Im still not convinced that it is the 25-45 green rather than the 80+ green rising on this graph.

 

[Brainaddict]

I really think contact tracing and testing/quarantining of all contacts should be an absolute priority right now as the only way to avoid carnage in winter. They need to train and pay thousands of people to do it properly, visit people's houses, make it compulsory for all buildings apart from shops to register who is in them. Their current approach is going to kill shitloads of people come winter, as though they haven't already killed enough.

 

[two sheds]

Here are the graphs relating to the excess mortality stuff, taken from the report I already linked to in previous post.

The similar colours used for several entries on these graphs make them a bit of a nightmare. I'm thinking the spike in the regional one is for the South West and the North West. But the age group one is doing my head in a bit because if it were not for the narrative about 25-45 year group, I would think it was the 80+ green one that was on the rise, not the 25-44 one. I'm going to have to search for underlying data because Im still not convinced that it is the 25-45 green rather than the 80+ green rising on this graph.

View attachment 227381
View attachment 227382
View attachment 227384

Spike in the south west? That still looks quite low. We've had visitors coming in but I haven't heard of that many cases yet.

Eta ignore me - spike on the right hand side of the graph

Eta eta - eek

 

[Thora]

If it is how it's supposed to work, it shouldn't be. That just makes a mockery of the whole thing. Not that it wasn't already making a mockery of itself...

Bizarre isn’t it The landlord has informed people and closed the pub to get staff all tested anyway, but didn’t have to.

 

[andysays]

... The UK's half-arsed nonsense may be worse than useless - giving people some false sense of security that the government is doing something when all they're doing is lining their friends' pockets.

Tbh, you could post that final sentence on most of the UK based threads and no one would disagree.

 

[elbows]

OK I used ONS data to check the death figures by age range. I can confirm that it was that younger age group that showed excess deaths. Well I dont actually have figures for expected deaths per week per age group, so I'm just using total deaths instead as this still shows the pattern.

To be more specific, its people in the 25-29 and 30-34 age groups that show the rise clearly in the data.

ONS data from: Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales, provisional - Office for National Statistics


Also note that this is all deaths from all causes, so I would hesitate before attaching a particular story to this, and probably wont attempt to do so unless this pattern continues over time.

 

[MrSki]

Not sure where these figures are from but if correct it does make the 28 day counting seem a bit flawed.

 

[cupid_stunt]

Not sure where these figures are from but if correct it does make the 28 day counting seem a bit flawed.

The daily figures have always been rough & ready, despite the lag, the ONS figures are better.

Of the deaths registered in Week 32 [w/e 7/8/20], 152 mentioned “novel coronavirus (COVID-19)”, the lowest number of deaths involving COVID-19 in the last 20 weeks and a 21.2% decrease compared with Week 31 (193 deaths), accounting for 1.7% of all deaths in England and Wales.

The number of deaths registered in the UK in the week ending 7 August 2020 (Week 32) was 10,210, which was 142 deaths fewer than the five-year average; of the deaths registered in the UK in Week 32, 162 deaths involved COVID-19.

So, the UK covid figure was 162, about 23 a day - the adjusted daily figure average for that w/e date was 11, up to yesterday it was 8, when the ONS data is published for this week I suspect it'll be around 20 a day.

 

[Mr.Bishie]

 

[two sheds]

I presume that's the average, which would mean it's a lot higher than that in some parts of the country? :

 

[elbows]

The daily figures have always been rough & ready, despite the lag, the ONS figures are better.



So, the UK covid figure was 162, about 23 a day - the adjusted daily figure average for that w/e date was 11, up to yesterday it was 8, when the ONS data is published for this week I suspect it'll be around 20 a day.

Exactly, and these are reasons why I havent bothered moaning too much about the governments change to 28 days.

There are a number of different ONS figures and the two I place most weight in are excess deaths, and the version of their weekly data where they show Covid-19 deaths (positive test or mentioned on death certificate) by actual date of death. That last one I mentioned is what should be used instead of the crap daily figure the government provide.

And there are a bunch of reasons why its been a long time since I paid attention to the daily announced UK figure. A lot of its problems, and the reason why the government felt the need to change the methodology to get the numbers down, is that the lag in its numbers is much worse than the ONS lag. I say it is much worse because by contrast with the deaths by date of death ONS figures, the ONS lag is clear and obvious and accounted for properly in the figures. So the lag there means we have to wait longer to see the data at all, but the lag does not distort the data itself. When I look at the ONS data that came out from Tuesday, I know it only includes deaths that were registered up till August 15th, and where the death occurred on any day up till August 7th. And I know that if deaths after this period come into their system later, they will be added to the appropriate days column of data, not just stuck into the very latest figure. The daily announced figure from the government is not like that at all, it tells me nothing about the actual date of death. And given how much lower their totals always were, its clear that that system had been hugely backlogged for a very long time, leading to figures announced on a particular day that have very little relationship with how many people per day were actually dying at that moment in time.

So even before the change to 28 days cutoff, the UK daily announced figure was no bloody use to me. The total it showed was useless given that the ONS total was so much higher. And it cant give me a good sense of the current rate of death per day. So what bloody good is it?

So anyway since the ONS stuff takes care of totals and offers a decent look at at deaths per day with a few weeks lag, and since the daily government figure is deeply flawed, this leaves the obvious question of how we are supposed to keep an eye on the current daily death rate so that we can judge what is happening with the pandemic here. I will write a followup post about this shortly.

On a dissapointing note, normally when I talk about ONS deaths by date of actual death, I take care to say that when producing this number for the whole of the UK, ONS only covers England & Wales and I have to add in data from NISRA and NRS to cover Northern Ireland and Scotland. Well, it seems Scotlands deaths from Covid-19 reached such a low level that they decided to stop publishing their weekly data report, although they will consider reinstating it if the situation changes. There is some crappy dashboard where I think I can see a weekly figure rather than a daily one but I havent finished checking that out.

 

[elbows]

I presume that's the average, which would mean it's a lot higher than that in some parts of the country? :

Reasons we have been seeing much less emphasis on R in more recent months from the government and journalists include:

They dont have a way to measure R directly, they have to deduce it using available data and various models and estimates. Various different groups give their estimates to SAGE and SAGE has to come up with a figure that finds some consensus within the group and is made public.

Their confidence in the quality of their estimates decreases further when they attempt to zoom in and do regional estimates. Often because its being based on too small an amount of data.

Specific outbreaks cause big spikes in the numbers of detected cases which influences these R estimates and causes them to have to insert further caveats.

R can vary wildly per setting. So for example during the era of the daily press conferences, on occasions where R estimates were mentioned, they made sure to included specific detail about how the estimate of R did not include care homes and hospitals. And they were extremely resistant to sharing any estimates of what R was in hospitals, probably because there was lots of suspected hospital transmission and crude calculations of R in that setting using the data they had would probably have generated a headline-worthy number if ever there was one.

So yeah in this phase of local measures, lockdowns etc, they've mostly had to focus on actual case rates and some other metrics rather than R. But when it comes to the overall trends, we will still sometimes hear something about R as is the case today. Thats not to say there are no regional estimates, I will dig for the latest of those a bit later on this afternoon.

I believe I found a weekly report for Scotland that I didnt know about before that includes plenty of stuff about their own R estimate that will probably shed some light on the underlying estimates and associated murk. I'll go and look for it now and will report back.

 

[elbows]

These are the Scotttish reports I mentioned. As well as the R stuff I shall highlight, its probably also of interest to people interested in the ongoing modelling. Because unlike the UK government, this set of Scottish reports seems quite keen to talk about ongoing efforts to model their epidemic. Of course they dont actually show us their models output stretching far into the future, and most of the detail reveals the high degree of uncertainty or limitations to the modelling. For example it sounds like they've been running the Imperial College model using their own data, but that model dates number of deaths as a main input, and the number of deaths in Scotland is currently too low to for the model to actually output anything useful at the moment!

Coronavirus (COVID-19): modelling the epidemic - gov.scot

Collection of reports including findings on modelling the COVID-19 epidemic in Scotland including the spread of the disease through the population (epidemiological modelling) and the demands it will place on the system.

www.gov.scot

Anyway, on with some R related snippets from the latest of those reports. Also note their eye-watering estimates for how high R was before intervention.

The reproduction rate R is becoming less certain, with the current range between 0.6 and 1.3 for Scotland.

The Rt value estimated by the Scottish Government falls within the range of values estimated by other modelling groups and considered by SPI-M and SAGE (Figure 2). SAGE’s consensus view, as of 13 August, was that the value of Rt in Scotland was between 0.6 and 1.3. This rise is primarily due to the outbreak in Aberdeen. The various groups which report to SPI-M use different sources of data in their models (ie. deaths, hospital admissions, cases) so their success at capturing this outbreak varies from group to group, leading to an increase in uncertainty this week.

 

[Steel Icarus]

Latest dispatch from the World of Loons I keep finding myself in: was instructed by a staff member that anyone approaching the building enrolment was happening in wearing a mask must be told that they don't have to because "it's annoying people".

 

[elbows]

I said too much already today so I think I'll delay my 'which death stats can we use to keep a timely eye on things' post till some time over the weekend instead.

I will still dig up some UK/England R stuff though to finish off my thoughts on that subject given its appearance in the news.

 

[baldrick]

The official definition of symptoms are quite vague when you're faced with them, especially as symptoms of C-19 can range from nothing to death.

I'm sorry you were ill but this did make me laugh

 

[elbows]

I'm sorry you were ill but this did make me laugh

Its just the same with other things including influenza, which is why I hope our attitude towards proper diagnostic testing is permanently changed in this country as a result of the pandemic.

Anyway regarding the R, I eventually found the dull site where updated estimates live these days, and it does include regional estimates but note the low confidence in some of the numbers they came up with. I should have found it much sooner but Im not used to news articles actually bothering to link to this kind of source, but sky did when I actually bothered to look properly.

The R value and growth rate

The latest reproduction number (R) and growth rate of coronavirus (COVID-19).

www.gov.uk

This unclear picture is the same as what I see in the reports based off of the test-based random population survey stuff. The problem is basically that they sample so many tens of thousands of people every week, and end up with relatively few positives as a result. And the more they zoom in, to regions and ideally even more locally, the less actual data they have and the lower their confidence becomes. I'm sure this is why a big fanfare was made of the news some days ago that they were looking to increase the numbers involved in this test survey system (by perhaps 5-fold, I forget exactly).

Here are some example reports from this system, that should indicate quickly to any reader how many of the questions they'd like to answer they cannot properly do so with the current data. Lots of 'no evidence to suggest' and 'it is not possible to say' I'm afraid.

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey, UK - Office for National Statistics

Percentage of people testing positive for coronavirus (COVID-19) in private residential households in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, including regional and age breakdowns. This survey is being delivered in partnership with University of Oxford, University of Manchester, UK Health...

www.ons.gov.uk

Coronavirus (COVID-19) Infection Survey - Office for National Statistics

Data about the characteristics of people testing positive for the coronavirus (COVID-19) from the COVID-19 Infection Survey. This survey is being delivered in partnership with the University of Oxford, the University of Manchester, Public Health England and Wellcome Trust.

www.ons.gov.uk

One of the few things that does stand out clearly enough in the limited data that they can actually say something useful about it, relates to risk of certain ethnic minorities getting infected at the moment. But even in this area the unknowns soon creep in.

Individuals identifying as Asian or Asian British were 4.8 times (95% confidence interval: 2.1 to 10.9) more likely to test positive for COVID-19 on a swab test than people of White ethnicity. This is based on nose and throat swabs taken during the most recent eight-week period of the study (8 June to 2 August 2020). While the 95% confidence intervals surrounding this estimate are large, the lower interval still indicates a higher chance of infection for those of the Asian or Asian British ethnic group.

For the remaining ethnic groups, the limited number of positive cases reported in our study over the latest eight-week period means that it is difficult to make conclusions about differences between ethnic groups.

 

[clicker]

elbows what was the r rate at the highest peak so far?

 

[elbows]

elbows what was the r rate at the highest peak so far?

It depends who you ask. Its always an estimate and is usually described as a range within confidence levels.

One of my posts above shows what they thought it was at the peak (which would have been pre-lockdown). I dont have time to look for the UK figure of the time but the Scottish graph seemed to use the famous Imperial College model which is the same one that got the most prominence in terms of the UK response, U-turn etc.

Via other sources we have been consuming R estimates more generally for the disease since this virus was first announced. Again I forget and dont have time to check now, but I think we were used to seeing early estimates that ranged from 2-3. And this number should of course plummet once behaviours change, whether on an individual level or via strong government interventions.

I would plot the changing UK regional estimates onto a graph showing the changes over time, except the relatively low reliability of the R estimates means I havent thought it worth the effort so far.

 

[elbows]

A not too subtle degree of bias from Northamptonshires director of public health in the quotes from that article methinks:

Mrs Wightman said Greencore had "highly effective measures in place and they continue to work extremely hard to exceed the requirements needed to be Covid-19 secure within the workplace".

She said the outbreak was "about how people behave outside of Greencore, not at work," adding if people failed to follow the rules "a possible local lockdown will follow".

What officials need to realise in regards their weasel words during a pandemic, is that they may have a very short shelf life. So what they have been taught to think works and is appropriate, because it pushes things into the long grass or redirects blame, is in danger of evolving in a different manner during a bad pandemic and quickly blowing up in their face.

And so, in light of the Northampton area ending up on the watch list, we have quickly ended up with this quote from the very same person. Spot the difference.

Lucy Wightman said: "Local testing data shows this spike is significantly influenced by a workplace outbreak at the Greencore Factory. As a result the factory will close voluntarily from today, and most employees and their direct households will be required to isolate at home for two weeks. The government is also introducing regulations to ensure this isolation period is enforceable and anyone leaving isolation without a reasonable excuse prior to the required period ending will be subject to fines.

Government escalates Northampton onto 'Area of Intervention' list over Covid-19 infection rates

The town has been added to the Government's watchlist after the borough's infection rate has risen for the fourth week in a row

www.northamptonchron.co.uk

 

[zora]

On the test & trace system - the landlord of a local pub was apparently called by t&t today and informed that a customer who was there on Saturday tested positive. They said the customer was only there for 30 minutes but wouldn’t tell the landlord a name or what time It was apparently just a call “for information“ and the pub didn’t need to do anything, get tests, give names. Is this really how it is supposed to work?

This does sound bizarre, and it would certainly be good to have more transparency and wider understanding how this is supposed to work, because if we are all tapping in the dark about this, then it can't have been communicated very well.

I do wonder if it's something to do with that mythical "closer contact than two metres for more than 15 minutes" benchmark that would trigger any more contact tracing. So, say, this man spoke to someone from test and trace, and told them he bought a pint at the bar and the bar staff were behind a perspex screen and he went and had his drink on his own/with his household in the garden/in a far corner of the pub and left after 30 mins, this would not be deemed an infection risk to others. [This is obviously pure conjecture on my part, just trying to think of a possible scenario].

But to call the pub and leave them scratching their heads and taking proactive measures off their own back seems shoddy at the very least. I'd also hope that "we" would err on thr side of caution a bit more, and certainly if I had been another customer at the time, I would like to know about it so that I could consider postponing the proverbial visit to grandma for another week or so...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Not sure where these figures are from but if correct it does make the 28 day counting seem a bit flawed.

Currently, around 250,000 people have tested positive for C-19 more than a month ago and not died. That isn't a representative cross-section of the population - it is a skewed demographic, given the average age of those testing positive in the early months was over 60, and those testing positive were more likely to have underlying conditions than average (a product of the testing regime rather than a reflection of who caught it). Taking that 90-odd and remembering that it's a non-weekend figure, it represents a level about the same as was being reported before the change - around 50 a day average. Before you can make sense of that figure, you have to calculate how many of those 250,000 you would expect to be dying daily without any covid-19, taking account of the demographic of that group.

That first daily figure is only a first approximation, remember. Deaths of people testing positive more than 28 days ago but who have c-19 mentioned on the death certificate will be added later. That the figure would be about the same as it was before if they hadn't made that change isn't really surprising. It would be more surprising if it had changed radically.