The latest #REACT survey (interim Rd 13) has been published and shows a big jump in infection levels, particularly amongst men.⚽️
Overall levels 🔼from 0.15% to 0.59%, and within Rd 13 doubling time is put at 6 days, (R=1.87).
Rates are 3x higher in the unvaccinated.
1/
Starting with the overall data - this interim report is very up to date, running to the 5th July (Wow! Speedy work @imperialcollege), and you can see the quadrupling of levels since Round 12.
The previous chart shows how they judge that the increase is accelerating.
2/
Between rounds 12 and 13, R is put at 1.32 (doubling time 15 days), but within round 13 it is estimated at 1.87, with a doubling time of just 6 days. These latter estimates do have wider CI's though.
3/
The main point of interest with Round 13 is that men appear to be around 50% more likely currently to test positive.
It's not hard to think of a reason why that might be the case. #itscominghome.
4/
The other key point is that those who are unvaccinated are three times more likely to test positive, with those having one dose in between.
Note though that even the fully vaccinated rate has quadrupled since Round 12.
5/
The age analysis is very predictable, with levels much higher in those under 25. Even at the oldest ages there have been increases, although proportionately less at the 75+ group.
6/
All regions are up substantially, but there has been an eightfold increase in London (from 0.13% to 1.08%), taking it above the NW which had previously been highest.
7/
Finally, here's the overall chart of infection levels. Note that the end of the graph suggests a level close to 1.0%, which is higher than the 0.59% quoted for the Round. That's because 0.59% is an average, and so the rate at the end will be higher when rates are rising.
8/
REACT is one tool used to chart infection levels along with the weekly ONS survey, PHE daily data, and ZOE.
Like the ONS data, a key strength is its random sampling approach. It can sometimes be criticised for being out of date, but with data to Sunday, not this time.
9/
Thanks to all the researchers at @ImperialCollege, its partners at @IpsosMORI, and also all who take part in it, without which it wouldn't be possible.
A great thread on the state pension and National Insurance.
For me, the trailed abolition of NI and thus its replacement by general taxation in terms of funding state pension benefits will have a major generational redistribution of tax.
It’s been the case that (in aggregate) at any one time the working generation funds the SPs of the retired generation above it.
2/
If the abolition of NI results in an increase (albeit smaller - else why bother) in income tax, whilst those in work will in total be better off, pensioners will be worse off.
3/
The Pensions & Lifetime Savings Association has updated its guide to living costs in retirement. The full report is well worth a read, and goes into a lot of detail.
One key point is that it assumes that pensioners own their home outright - probably reasonable now, but the shift to renting means that in future years that may become increasingly questionable.
2/
It focuses on retirement income, but note that other sources may be used to fund retirement, whether it be income from savings/investments, or gradual withdrawal of capital. Much more likely to be relevant for those aspiring to a comfortable lifestyle of course.
3/
UKHSA estimates that prevalence of COVID in England and Scotland has nearly tripled in the month since the ONS restarted its COVID infection surveillance.
Fortunately prevalence is lowest at the oldest, more vulnerable age groups, but is estimated at just under 6% in the 18 to 44 age groups.
2/
Prevalence is estimated to be highest in the London area, at just over 6% across the population. Note though that confidence intervals are wider due to lower sample sizes than in previous studies.
So with the news this morning that the earnings growth announced today means the state pension (SP) will very likely increase by another 8.5% next year, it's time to set out once again why the SP triple lock (TL) is such a bad idea.
1/
It's all down to cherry-picking the best of the three rates each year. I did a thread nearly a year ago, that hopefully sets out clearly how the mechanism inevitably means that the SP will grow over time against both earnings (E) and prices (P).
With BH's still distorting individual weeks' figures, the cumulative position gives a better view, with the latest CMI age-standardised analysis showing mortality 3.8% (of a full year's mortality) worse than its reference year of 2019.
Here's the mea culpa - it was only wrong by a factor of 13, but at least the post has been deleted rather than just corrected and left up, when experience shows that only a fraction of the original audience will see the correction.
So what are the true numbers?
2/
In E&W the peak week in 2020 was just under 9,000, and the second wave peak was pretty close to that number.
In total ONS has recorded 199,728 COVID related deaths in E&W since the pandemic started.