COVID case rates are still hard to interpret (because holidays), but I think the broad patterns are still worth looking at.
Changes in the past week here show cases rising in all age groups, but fastest in older, more vulnerable age groups.
(the latest day's data is promising, but I have low confidence that it tells us much about whether cases are actually falling or rising, so interpret with caution)
This is what those changes convert to in terms of absolute case rates. A really clear Omicron wedge, from people in their 20s up the age groups.
For line graph fans (or heatmap-o-phobes) here's the same data in line form. Under 14s clearly doing their own thing (at least until the new term appears in the data in a week or so), but everyone else heading upwards.
Moving back to case growth, i.e. the slope of the previous graph, the picture is messy and there is a lot of variation between ages, but there are some clear patterns...
In the under 20s, things are *relatively* stable, although cases are rising slowly.
The new school term is likely to wreak havoc with these lines though, I'd guess.
How worrying you think that is will depend very much on your perspective.
In younger adults case growth has settled down a lot, although cases are still rising, since the initial Omicron explosion in mid-December.
For people in their 40s and 50s, after a sharp initial rise when Omicron first hit, growth has levelled off, but cases are still rising pretty fast.
I'm honestly not sure how to explain/interpret the recent divergence in a group that has been tightly bunched previously.
Things get more worrying in 60-79 year-olds, where the Omicron wave has plateaued at much fast rate of growth, with cases doubling every week.
The picture is similar in the over 80s, but, if anything, slightly worse. Cases more than doubling every week.
Now, of course, this is case growth, not case rates. Case rates themselves are still much lower in older age groups than younger adults. But the gradient risk is steeper still, so this is a big concern for hospital admissions in the coming weeks.
There is also an important geographical element, with cases seemingly falling in younger ages in London, and rising rapidly in older ages in the North West.
I sincerely hope that the latest data isn't a blip and that cases do start heading down across the country soon. But I have low confidence in the recent data suggesting we might be there already. The effect of the holidays makes everything very uncertain.
So I'll just have to sit and wait. And draw graphs.
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.
...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...
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:
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.
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?
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.
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.
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-…
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.
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.
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.