The latest #REACT study (Round 17) confirms the rapid growth seen in other studies, tripling between R16 and 17 to 4.4%, the highest seen to date, with Omicron being 98% of samples.
Within R17, there's a clear sign of a fall though, with R put at 0.95, but varying by age.
1/
That age variation can be seen here, with U17s still increasing through the round, whereas adults are showing clear declines.
2/
Here's the history of these surveys, showing how R17 (5/1 to 20/1) is also around 3 times the rate at the peak of Alpha a year ago (R8). You can see the sample sizes too here if you're interested.
3/
Talking of sampling sizes, a nice pictorial here of how many are asked to participate, through to how many positive cases were sequences. It's a massive exercise, and thanks to all at @imperialcollege and @IpsosMORI for their continuing efforts.
4/
Back to the data - no surprises here in terms of Omicron's takeover, with 99% of those sequenced being that variant.
5/
Snapshot of the age differences. Note at the far right that although the oldest ages are the lowest, they've increased proportionately much more. 12x in the case of the 70+ group.
6/
Regional differences here, showing the NE as the highest during the round in contrast to R16, when London was highest. (The gap between rounds means the London peak seen elsewhere was missed.)
7/
The regional variations are probably more obvious in these charts, showing the intense areas in the NW and NE, and generally the big cities having higher prevalence.
8/
There are lots more data in the report, confirming some fairly intuitive findings, that household size (and no of children) impact prevalence rates, as do contact with someone infected, shielding status, and deprivation.
9/
Curiously an early version of the report commented on how many of those positive had previously had COVID, (as picked up by the BBC here), but there's no reference to that now in either the report or the summary of the findings.
Finally, we'll shortly have the latest ONS flash summary taking its analysis up to around the same end point as Round 17, which as usual I'll provide a summary of.
The report has now been updated to include the missing reference mentioned above. If for every one positive who hadn't previously had confirmed COVID, two more are reinfections, that could be quite a dramatic increase in cases next week on the dashboard.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
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.