Government publishes new statements on Covid-19 deaths

The publication of new data by the government shows that 3 people from The Meadows have died; their deaths involving the coronavirus (COVID-19) between 1 March and 17 April 2020. 76 people for Nottingham in total.

Data for a range of purposes are collected in output areas and then sometimes presented in collections of these areas in super output areas, There are 2 that cover The Meadows, that together are quite similar to the old Bridge ward. Source: Office for National Statistics.

“People living in more deprived areas have experienced COVID-19 mortality rates more than double those living in less deprived areas. General mortality rates are normally higher in more deprived areas, but so far COVID-19 appears to be taking them higher still.”
Nick Stripe, Head of Health Analysis, Office for National Statistics.

76 deaths of Nottingham city residents is slightly above the 71 that might be expected for share of population.
Whilst above the national trend, not as much as might be suggested given the deprivation in Nottingham.
The numbers of lab-confirmed cases of Covid-19 in Nottingham continues to be significantly below what might be suggested by share of population.
The reason for this is not known, but has been a trend for 3-4 weeks.

Assuming a UK population of 67.9 million, and a Nottingham population of 331 thousand, Nottingham’s share of 177 thousand cases nationally, by population would be 865, using figures published by PHE on 1st May.
If we round Nottingham’s figures down, assuming students are living away, the share would be 784 (within 300,000 people).
However, the number of cases are lower than these expectations – 518.  
I have therefore asked whether Nottingham has been under-testing, and have been advised that Nottingham is not, despite an assertion from an acquaintance. 

Assuming a Meadows population of 9 thousand, the share of cases might be 14, or 23, depending on sharing the Nottingham case figure or the national case figure.  
PHE have published 27,510 deaths in which Covid-19 has been involved, a Nottingham share of which might be 80, or 134, and a Meadows share of which might be 2, or 3.
However, PHE have published datasets (showing deaths by Super Output Areas) running up until April 17th, at which time, the national death rate figure was 14,756.  
This might suggest that the number of deaths in The Meadows might now stand at 5 or 6.  
At such low numbers, such figures can only be treated as indicative.  
But it does suggest that whilst The Meadows case rate is below national average, the death rate is above.

The main finding drawn from the SOA datasets that death rates are higher in the more deprived neighbourhoods (see quote).
Note, an FT journalist has published a much higher national number of deaths at 48,100 (30th April), suggesting a Nottingham figure of 234 and a Meadows figure of 6 (both by share of population).

The purpose of the additional calculations are to give a sense of local perspective, and to prompt questions of public health officers.e.g. are we testing enough in Nottingham? And how many of us have had the disease? Can you reasonably loosen the lockdown?

One scientist has published calculations of the fatality rate of .75% (+/- .26%).
Assuming 60,000 of those who have or have had the disease have died (increases on the FT journalist figure), this suggests only 12% of us (or perhaps 9%, or perhaps 18%) have or had have the disease, well below the often cited 60% required to stop the disease spreading without special measures.
But such figures are not being publicly rehearsed; so perhaps such a calculation is not legitimate, or it is still not known how to calculate such a figure.

Improved surgery rooms

Lilian Greenwood came to the Bridgeway Practice at Meadows Health Centre to see the renewed surgery rooms.
Lilian Greenwood – “It was great to see how the changes to the building and general refurbishment was making a positive difference for both patients and staff. Congratulations to the practice and patient representatives – Susan, Terry and Eunice – for their determination.

I’m Not Running

Of course, what we say over here is “I’m not Standing”.
Watching this broadcast of a live play from London, I was riled at half-time. A would-be Labour star cos he’s good at polishing and presenting policy is incapable of explaining how New Labour was (then) introducing the largest hospital building programme in the country’s history.
But an interview with the playwright David Hare in during the interval, it became clear that he’d created a story to make some key points –
– that Labour should have elected a woman leader by now; and that while that case is made by presenting a less than fully capable man, my initial disappointment with the man being not good enough might simply be the point; (but did David Hare vote for Liz Kendall?);
– that his concern that people were too keen to celebrate single issue politics was not helped by the less than the best man representing party politics in a useless way;
– that health professionals had been undermined by efficiency initiatives (which won enthusiastic applause from some in the audience); but, beyond the fundamental political principle that people who spend public money should account for it, there was the trebling of spend on health under Labour and building new hospitals, some of the new initiatives did work well and millions could be saved by focus on use of operating theatres; we in essence got rid of the waiting list.
The play has only managed 3 star reviews; (one criticism – why does the advocate or women MP continue to be attracted to the careerist Labour MP?). I can understand that the playwright was trying to avoid the issues that come with Corbyn as leader, and Brexit – to which he probably needed to set in 1997 – 2015.
3 of the play’s characters are. very appealing and enjoyable to watch – most particularly, the spin doctor! And one very special passage about learning to debate at university being about individuals holding the moral high ground and how unpleasant debate can be.

I went cos it featured Labour, it was by David Hare and it was an event -sold out at the Broadway. But kinda new I would be disappointed.
(2 stars; e:3 (for the second half), s:2, p:3; Guardian; Standard; no wiki page)

Allelujah!

I’m the wrong person to review this play, broadcast to the cinema as an as-live production.  I find Alan Bennett’s humour too twee and so I defer to reviews from The Guardian and the New Statesman.
Certainly interesting watching a focussed on geriatric wards Monday afternoon. shown in a theatre full of retired people.
(r:5; e:3; s:2; t:3)
The political messages are confused.  A smaller hospital is better because its local, but a major incident is discovered because no-one was looking for the right things.  Targets encourages inhumanity but having more performance data should have triggered a discovery.
The play misses the big issues.  Hospitals entering black status more frequently cos funding ain’t growing with the need of an older society, cuts in public health and social services, less regular work and proper pay for working class families leading to more problems at home.  And perhaps education not doing enough to set young people up for life.  100,000 posts in the NHS not filled cos of poor planning for training.
TO BE REVIEWED.

Nottingham tackling Breast Cancer

IMG_4070m (2) nbcrc launch speakers montageSpeakers at the new University of Nottingham Breast Cancer Research Centre.
This first public event of its kind in Nottingham designed to raise awareness and to present information on the science of their research.

 

Two of the significant concepts in understanding and tackling the disease are named after Nottingham –
– the Nottingham grading system;
– the Nottingham prognostic index;
and the efforts are led by one of the top 20 cancer specialists in the world.