Colin Angus Profile picture
May 20, 2021 12 tweets 4 min read Read on X
COVID case numbers in Bolton do look rather scary.

BUT...
These cases are very heavily weighted towards younger age groups who are less likely to have been offered a vaccine and are less likely to end up in hospital.

There has been a rise in cases in people in their 50s/60s in the last few days of complete data, which we need to watch
Overall the age profile of cases in the current outbreak in Bolton is quite different to what we've seen before.

Some of this will be differences in testing, particularly among schoolchildren, but I doubt we're testing people aged 50+ less than we were back in January.
The latest admissions data only runs up to 9th May (we'll get another week's tomorrow) but absolutely no signs of danger here.
If we compare hospital admissions rates in Bolton to the rest of England, then things don't look particularly different to anywhere else.
It's also worth pointing out that although there are a few other areas which have seen recent jumps in the numbers of cases, Bolton is very much an outlier.

No sign yet of anywhere else following the same trajectory.
Obviously that's no reason to take unnecessary risks, but I'm still not panicking just yet.
Finally, in terms of vaccination rates. It is true that the parts of Bolton at the centre of the current outbreak do have lower vaccination rates than the rest of Bolton. But overall vaccination rates aren't particularly low compared to the rest of the country.
If you adjust for age, to account for the fact that areas with younger populations *should* have lower overall vaccination rates as fewer people will have been invited yet, Bolton looks even less remarkable.
Here's a zoomed in set of maps for Bolton.

We know cases are largely in age groups who haven't even been offered vaccinations yet. The story in Bolton isn't that low vaccination uptake has caused this outbreak. It might exacerbate it's effects, but it wasn't the cause.
R code for all these plots is in here somewhere. Let me know if you want code for a specific plot (sorry, short of time and these plots are from all over the place!)

github.com/VictimOfMaths/…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Colin Angus

Colin Angus Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @VictimOfMaths

Mar 19
In Scotland, the GMB union have been vocal in calling for the proposed increase in the MUP threshold from 50p to 65p to be scrapped, on the basis that this is a 30% rise, while wages and disposable incomes have risen by barely 1% since 2018.

But wait...

gmbscotland.org.uk/newsroom/gmb-s…
...The 1% figure that GMB are citing is *after adjusting for inflation*. The latest data shows that household disposable incomes are 1.3% higher than they were at the start of 2018 in real terms.

But the MUP threshold hasn't been adjusted for inflation over the same period...
...50p in May 2018 when MUP was introduced is the same value in real terms as 62p today. So if GMB are arguing that the MUP threshold should rise at the same level as disposable incomes, then their logic means that Scottish Government would be increasing it to...
Read 5 tweets
Feb 28
OK, I read this and while there are some sensible points there is an awful lot of nonsense in here.

So here's a few things I'd like to address:
1) As I've already had a little rant, the attempt to dismiss the use of counterfactuals as "speculation" (but only in studies that show a benefit from MUP, they are fine in studies that find no benefit) is unbelievably dumb.

2) It is perfectly reasonable to highlight that many MUP studies have found little or no evidence of effect. However, it's daft to look across all studies and give them all equal importance. As the blog itself highlights - here are the original stated aims of MUP: Image
Read 18 tweets
Jun 27, 2023
Quite a few takes today on the evaluation of MUP which talk about it 'failing' or having 'mixed impacts', in spite of headline evaluation results showing it reduced alcohol consumption and deaths.

To some extent this reflects one challenge of such a comprehensive evaluation...
If the only studies that had been done were those on population level alcohol consumption and harm, you might reasonably claim on that basis that MUP had been an unqualified success.
But actually there have been 40 studies, including those commissioned by @P_H_S_Official and various independent pieces of work, looking at many different aspects of the impact of MUP.
Read 16 tweets
Feb 28, 2023
Our new paper looking at alcohol, drug and suicide mortality during the first 2 years of the pandemic in the USA and the UK nations has just been published in @RSPH_PUHE

Lots of attention on these deaths early in the pandemic, so what actually happened?

doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe… A screenshot of the title p...
We used publicly available mortality data to calculate age-standardised mortality rates for each cause and country from 2001-2021.

The shaded grey area represents the pandemic preiod.

Americans, look away now. A line chart showing annual...
In particular, many people made dire predictions that we'd see a big rise in deaths by suicide at the start of the pandemic. Thankfully these appear to have been misplaced. If anything, suicide rates *fell* in 2020. Line chart showing the same...
Read 18 tweets
Feb 13, 2023
Ugh. I have a lot of time for @IHME_UW but their consistent refusal to engage with reasonable criticism is disgraceful (@TheLancet don’t come out of this too well either, mind).

Full credit to @WHO for taking a more open and receptive approach.
@IHME_UW @TheLancet @WHO This refusal to engage with criticism is a depressingly recurring feature of IHME. Their COVID infection modelling repeatedly gave completely implausible results. They never publicly responded to people pointing this out, just quietly made (opaque) changes to their models...
...so the next set of results was less obviously wrong.

I've also had personal experiences of this. Last year IHME published a study (in The Lancet, where else) which did some interesting modelling, but fundamentally misinterpreted the results.
doi.org/10.1016/S0140-…
Read 11 tweets
Oct 18, 2022
In 2020, we saw a sharp increase in alcohol-specific deaths.

ONS haven't yet released their alcohol-specific deaths data for 2021, but I realised you can reconstruct the figures from data they have already published, and it's not good news, I'm afraid, a further 7.6% increase. Image
This represents the second largest single year increase in at least the past two decades, behind only last year.

Both men and women have seen alcohol-specific mortality rise sharply since the start of the pandemic. Image
Deaths have risen in almost all age groups, but most sharply in 45-59 year olds.

It's quite striking in this graph how deaths in these age groups were fairly stable pre-pandemic, while alcohol-specific mortality in older ages had been rising steadily for a decade or more. Image
Read 15 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(