COVID-19 data from data.gov.uk. "Average" is a short-hand way to refer to the moving cumulative total COVID-19 positive test cases over 7 days given as a daily reported figure. Figures are calculated by using:
<ul><li>Daily numbers of <i>newCasesByPublishDate</i> from data.gov.uk</li>
<li>Adding up the past 7 days reported cases for each date</li>
<li>Dividing by the ONS latest estimated population, multiplying by 100,000. E.g. Gateshead ONS official population estimate is 202,055</li></ul><p>Sources:
</p>
<ol><li><a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/developers-guide">https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/developers-guide</a></li>
<li><a rel="nofollow" class="external free" href="https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland">https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/datasets/populationestimatesforukenglandandwalesscotlandandnorthernireland</a> (mid-2019: April 2020 local authority district codes)</li></ol><p>Created using <a href="https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Pywikibot" class="extiw" title="mw:Pywikibot">Pywikibot</a> and <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://plotly.com/python/">Plotly</a>. Last 28 days are shown with average calculated for the 7 days inclusive before each data point plotted. Will continue to automatically update on a daily basis while figures are high (i.e. above 100).
</p><p><b>From 16 November 2020</b> the data systematically changed to count cases <i>locally</i> regardless of where someone was registered with a GP. Probably due to the very high population density of students in Newcastle Upon Tyne, this had a dramatic effect of appearing to trebling cases overnight, when the reality was that cases in the city had been massively under reported. Refer to <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/covid-19-geographical-allocation-of-positive-cases/geographical-allocation-of-positive-covid-19-cases">PHE official statement</a>.
</p>
Note that <a rel="nofollow" class="external text" href="https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/world/europe/united-kingdom-coronavirus-cases.html#map">NYTimes</a> is a good comparison, which uses the same datasets, but thier ONS census data is from 2011, so the figures are "artificially" higher as these population figures will always be larger when calculating <code><i>total cases/population * 100,000</i></code>, but will give identical trend lines.
Fæ
2020-10-09
<span class="int-own-work" lang="en">Own work</span>