Maybe that's the root cause of the NHS's issue: not using a database and using Excel instead? 😉

Maybe that's the root cause of the NHS's issue: not using a database and using Excel instead? 😉

Its one of the issues.
Why the hell someone decided to store nationally important, sensitive data in Excel will remain a mystery. You'd HOPE people were fired fired for it.

SQL and databases exist for a reason. This is one of the reasons.

That's really noisy data, a rolling average might help.

Better PCR testing procedures and quality control would go a long way here. The private labs are showing ridiculously high positive results - about 8x too many. NHS labs in the summer showed up to 1.7x too many. Cambridge University labs recently showed 1.13x too many.

See here: https://forums.lockdownsceptics.org/viewtopic.php?p=6863#p6863

Thats really noisy data, a rolling average might help.

You can download the complete dataset from the link apart from the % positive which I added in a spreadsheet. As I said in the initial post there appears to have been a step change in the percent positive tests which occured pretty much from one day to the next and continued.I know the labs are terrible but unless a new really terrible came onstream then that doesn't explain this. It would be very nice to see % positive from each of the labs to see if there is a big variance.

Everything derives from these dodgy tests from "cases" to admissions to deaths. That step chanhe looks to be pretty ridiculous to me.

Thats really noisy data, a rolling average might help.

You can download the complete dataset from the link apart from the % positive which I added in a spreadsheet. As I said in the initial post there appears to have been a step change in the percent positive tests which occurred pretty much from one day to the next and continued

First, try the specimen date rather than the publish date. Then try the 7-day average.