|
Post by dan1 on Jul 1, 2020 12:30:23 GMT
Following on from the Leicester debacle, here is my understanding of how the public can best track cases in their local area. From the Coronavirus Dashboard you can download a csv file of cases. This data is for pillar 1 only and is broken down by Upper Tier Local Authority (UTLA = counties, 1 million odd population) and Lower Tier Local Authority (LTLA = districts, 100k's odd population). The National COVID-19 Surveillance Reports release an Excel sheet which includes: Figure 9: Weekly rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population tested under Pillar 1 and 2, by upper-tier local authority, England The data is provided for the preceding week and is updated on Thursday. The Excel sheet and summary PDF include a lot more data besides this. So, there is no breakdown of cases by LTLA for pillar 1 + pillar 2. All you can do to track pillar 1 + pillar 2 is to analyse the previous weeks data for UTLA from the surveillance report issued on Thursday. Pillar 1: swab testing in Public Health England (PHE) labs and NHS hospitals for those with a clinical need, and health and care workers Pillar 2: swab testing for the wider population, as set out in government guidance ~~~ e.g. Leicester UTLA = 140.2 cases per 100,000 (the next highest is Bradford with 69.4) for week 25 according to the surveillance report. Between 17-23 June (week 25), there were 70 cases reported via the dashboard, equivalent to 20 per 100,000.
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jul 1, 2020 13:26:00 GMT
Following on from the Leicester debacle, here is my understanding of how the public can best track cases in their local area. From the Coronavirus Dashboard you can download a csv file of cases. This data is for pillar 1 only and is broken down by Upper Tier Local Authority (UTLA = counties, 1 million odd population) and Lower Tier Local Authority (LTLA = districts, 100k's odd population). The National COVID-19 Surveillance Reports release an Excel sheet which includes: Figure 9: Weekly rate of COVID-19 cases per 100,000 population tested under Pillar 1 and 2, by upper-tier local authority, England The data is provided for the preceding week and is updated on Thursday. The Excel sheet and summary PDF include a lot more data besides this. So, there is no breakdown of cases by LTLA for pillar 1 + pillar 2. All you can do to track pillar 1 + pillar 2 is to analyse the previous weeks data for UTLA from the surveillance report issued on Thursday. Pillar 1: swab testing in Public Health England (PHE) labs and NHS hospitals for those with a clinical need, and health and care workers Pillar 2: swab testing for the wider population, as set out in government guidance ~~~ e.g. Leicester UTLA = 140.2 cases per 100,000 (the next highest is Bradford with 69.4) for week 25 according to the surveillance report. Between 17-23 June (week 25), there were 70 cases reported via the dashboard, equivalent to 20 per 100,000. Here is an example of why we need case data for pillar 1 + pillar 2: One of the areas I keep an eye on is Ashford in Kent. It's had pretty high numbers of cases compared to the surrounding area and the UK as a whole. In week 25 the dashboard pillar 1 data indicates there were 31 32 cases or a rate of 24 25 per 100,000 (higher than Leicester). But, look at the weekly surveillance report and the rate is 13.5 for Kent* - pretty middle of the road for England. The problem arises because Ashford accounts for just 8% of the population of the Kent so if the vast majority of pillar 2 cases in Kent are from Ashford then there's a real problem yet very few people have access to the necessary data. ~~~ For completeness the pillar 1 rate for Kent is 9 per 100,000 ( 144 138 cases). Therefore, the pillar 2 rate is 4.5 ( 68 74 cases). The upper bound for Ashford (all pillar 2 in Kent are from Ashford) would equate to a rate of 77 82 per 100,000. By Kent I refer to the UTLA of Kent, which excludes Medway (which lies in the county of Kent). Edit: corrections above in red due to incorrect dates used for week 25 (correct dates 15-21 June).
|
|
up
Posts: 59
Likes: 62
|
Post by up on Jul 2, 2020 8:39:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jul 2, 2020 14:55:05 GMT
The PHE weekly surveillance report and associated data was published earlier, well worth a read if you're into the detail... www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-covid-19-surveillance-reportsLeicester aside, the overall trend is positive. I noted that PHE are now listing outbreaks in workplace settings for the first time - perhaps an area to keep an eye on given events in Leicester and the meat packing plants. ~~~ I decided to take a look at the pillar 1 vs pillar 1+2 data following the revelation (to me at least) that the cases downloaded from the dashboard cover pillar 1 only. The regional charts below show the pillar 1 data (solid line) with a 7-day moving average, and the pillar 1+2 data (dotted line) taken from the surveillance data. I guess it adds that element of Russian roulette if you're planning on a trip to the pub on Saturday in the East Midlands or Yorkshire and the Humber Hijacking your thread cb25 - apologies!
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Jul 2, 2020 15:21:44 GMT
dan1 No need to apologize, it's a thread I started mainly in order to keep the oft updated stats away from the main thread but for all to use as they see fit.
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,855
Likes: 1,591
|
Post by benaj on Jul 2, 2020 17:47:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jul 2, 2020 20:57:06 GMT
The stats are late today, probably because of this: Released a few minutes ago. The cases csv is now pillar 1+2...
|
|
benaj
Member of DD Central
Posts: 4,855
Likes: 1,591
|
Post by benaj on Jul 7, 2020 8:25:00 GMT
Dashboard has been updated on GOV.
Now Leicester is being shown as the ULTA with the highest rate, total cases: 3,887
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,184
Likes: 5,991
|
Post by registerme on Jul 7, 2020 10:09:02 GMT
Dashboard has been updated on GOV. Wait, they've been double counting all this time?
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 7, 2020 15:45:21 GMT
Wait, they've been double counting all this time?
BoJo's lot have a bit of a problem with counting.
Remember the famous "completed tests" which included those which were merely "in the post" ?
Or the double counting of PPE gloves ? Despite the fact a single glove is not of much use to a medical professional ?
Or the old chestnut, the double-announcement of money being made available for X, Y or Z which was actually a small chunks of a pot announced last year pre-covid?
I suspect they would be unable to count how many fingers they have without trying to put a political twist on it.
you're joking. I hadn't hear that one. So when they talk about a million gloves, they literally mean gloves, not pair of gloves. Marvellous. Of course, strictly correct I'm sure, in the same way that leaving your house and not isolating at home when having symptoms is strictly correct.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,521
Likes: 2,665
|
Post by cb25 on Jul 7, 2020 16:05:06 GMT
you're joking. I hadn't hear that one. So when they talk about a million gloves, they literally mean gloves, not pair of gloves. Marvellous. Of course, strictly correct I'm sure, in the same way that leaving your house and not isolating at home when having symptoms is strictly correct.
Was evidently some while back now, but if memory serves some journo tracked down someone (think it was the manufacturer(s) concerned) and yes, the tally was a million single gloves.
I'd heard it before somewhere.
Appears to have featured in a BBC Panorama programme.
"Monday night’s Panorama was a rigorous, properly sourced investigation into the procurement and supply of PPE, which posed serious questions for the Government. It also included contributions from health professionals about their frontline experience. It featured four new revelations: That the billion plus items of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that the government has supplied included cleaning products and individually counted gloves, which is sourced from a document tracking national PPE supply..." ( BBC)
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 7, 2020 16:33:22 GMT
Was evidently some while back now, but if memory serves some journo tracked down someone (think it was the manufacturer(s) concerned) and yes, the tally was a million single gloves.
I'd heard it before somewhere.
Appears to have featured in a BBC Panorama programme.
"Monday night’s Panorama was a rigorous, properly sourced investigation into the procurement and supply of PPE, which posed serious questions for the Government. It also included contributions from health professionals about their frontline experience. It featured four new revelations: That the billion plus items of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) that the government has supplied included cleaning products and individually counted gloves, which is sourced from a document tracking national PPE supply..." ( BBC) Well look on the bright side, at least they didn't go as far as considering a glove to be 5 items of finger PPE.
|
|
dovap
Member of DD Central
Posts: 467
Likes: 410
|
Post by dovap on Jul 7, 2020 16:45:14 GMT
tbf you buy boxes of 100 single pieces/gloves(or upwards)
It may have been a surprise to the panorama folk but seems fairly normal to count a box of 100 as 100 ? I suppose the mathematicians could go on to calculate how many pairs that would equate to or maybe count the boxes instead
|
|
|
Post by dan1 on Jul 7, 2020 21:57:18 GMT
Don't forget the spit 'n swab test counts as two tests - one for the spit, one the swab.
Want to know why they won't publish how many people are being tested? Yup, they've never hit their own targets.
In their desperation they've removed from the public domain one of the most important metrics, that of positivity (because it would reveal they've failed to hit their targets).
Shocking but then we get the politicians we deserve.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jul 8, 2020 6:06:56 GMT
tbf you buy boxes of 100 single pieces/gloves(or upwards)It may have been a surprise to the panorama folk but seems fairly normal to count a box of 100 as 100 ? I suppose the mathematicians could go on to calculate how many pairs that would equate to or maybe count the boxes instead That is a valid comment: PPE gloves are universal fit i.e. no distinction between LH and RH, and therefore it would be normal to think in terms of number of gloves, not pairs of gloves. However there is a miserable pattern with Hancock and his associates of bigging everything up and consequently emanating a sleazy sense of prioritising political point scoring over truth and efficacy of actions. Which is really the point being commented on.
|
|