A bit late to the party with comment on the PHE data issued on Thu, and the issue with NIMS/ONS population figures has been well described by many, including @JamesWard73.
But worth setting out how it affects my previous estimate of effectiveness, shown again here.
1/
That used ONS data for the 50+ population, 21.3m, and deducting those we know to be vaccinated, came up with 0.77m without any jabs. Move to a NIMS figure, 22.4m, and the number unjabbed increases by the full difference, to 1.83m - ie it more than doubles.
2/
If you more than double the denominator, the resulting rate for the unvaxxed more than halves, and you see the difference here. Note the other figures are unchanged, as we know those populations.
3/
Which estimate of population to use has been hotly debated, and this issue shows the risks of using data without understanding its limitations.
But which one is right you ask? As a sense check, using NIMS data gives an efficacy for admissions of 78%, whereas ONS gives 91%.
4/
Elsewhere in the same report from PHE, efficacy against hospitalisation from Delta is put at 96%, which might suggest the ONS data is closer to the mark.
5/
It's great we now have a much more detailed age split, but the confusion over data, (disappointingly amplified by @Peston who should have done more research given his influence), has, at best, diluted the impact.
6/
And even figures based on the NIMS data still provide a compelling reason to be vaccinated if you are one of the older age groups who are still unpersuaded as to the benefits.
7/
And looking at younger age groups, whilst death is much rarer, the equivalent data for admissions shows that vaccination still results in a very significant reduction in your risk of being hospitalised.
8/
There were 438 admissions for under 18s in the four week period in the data. Unfortunately the majority of these will not have had the opportunity to be vaccinated (a different subject), but this highlights the ongoing risk to younger people.
9/
Thanks to all those at PHE involved in this latest enhancement to the data. I know it's been long asked for, but I don't underestimate the work involved in getting the data, crunching the numbers and setting up a process for weekly updates.
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.