There is an urgent need to understand the factors that mediate and mitigate the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic on behaviour and wellbeing. However, the onset of the outbreak was unexpected and the rate of acceleration so rapid as to preclude the planning of studies that can address these critical issues. Coincidentally, in January 2020, just prior to the outbreak in the UK, my team launched a study that collected detailed (~50 minute) cognitive and questionnaire assessments from >200,000 members of the UK public as part of a collaboration with the BBC. This placed us in a unique position to examine how aspects of mental health subsequently changed as the pandemic arrived in the UK. Therefore, we collected data from a further ~120,000 people in May, including additional detailed measures of self-perceived pandemic impact and free text descriptions of the main positives, negatives and pragmatic measures that people found helped them maintain their wellbeing.

In this data archive, we include the survey data from January and May 2020 examining impact of Covid-19 on mood, wellbeing and behaviour in the UK population. This data is reported in a preprint article, where we apply a novel fusion of psychometric, multivariate and machine learning analyses to this unique dataset, in order to address some of the most pressing questions regarding wellbeing during the pandemic in a data-driven manner. The preprint is available on this URL. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.18.20134635v1

COVID-19 is the first known coronavirus pandemic. Nevertheless, the seasonal circulation of the four milder coronaviruses of humans – OC43, NL63, 229E and HKU1 – raises the possibility that these viruses are the descendants of more ancient coronavirus pandemics. This proposal arises by analogy to the observed descent of seasonal influenza subtypes H2N2 (now extinct), H3N2 and H1H1 from the pandemic strains of 1957, 1968 and 2009, respectively. Recent historical revisionist speculation has focussed on the influenza pandemic of 1889-1892, based on molecular phylogenetic reconstructions that show the emergence of human coronavirus OC43 around that time, probably by zoonosis from cattle. If the “Russian influenza”, as The Times named it in early 1890, was not influenza but caused by a coronavirus, the origins of the other three milder human coronaviruses may also have left a residue of clinical evidence in the 19th century medical literature and popular press. In this paper, we search digitised 19th century British newspapers for evidence of previously unsuspected coronavirus pandemics. We conclude that there is little or no corpus linguistic signal in the UK national press for large-scale outbreaks of unidentified respiratory disease for the period 1785 to 1890. Methods The data file is a spreadsheet used to record queries made via CQPweb (https://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk). Search Terms For clarity, in the ensuing descriptions, we use bold font for search terms and italic font for collocates and other quotations. Based on clinical descriptions of COVID-19 (reviewed by Cevik et al., 2020), we identified the following search terms: 1) “cough”, 2) “fever”, 3) “pneumonia”. To avoid confusion with years when influenza pandemics may have occurred, we added 4) “influenza” and 5) “epidemic”. Any combination of terms 1 to 3 co-occurring with term 4 alone or terms 4 and 5 together, would be indicative of a respiratory outbreak caused by, or at the least attributed to, influenza. By contrast, any combination of terms 1 to 3 co-occurring with term 5 alone, or without either of terms 4 and 5, would suggest a respiratory disease that was not confidently identified as influenza at the time. This outbreak would provide a candidate coronavirus epidemic for further investigation. Newspapers Newspapers and years searched were as follows: Belfast Newsletter (1828-1900), The Era (1838-1900), Glasgow Herald (1820-1900), Hampshire & Portsmouth Telegraph (1799-1900), Ipswich Journal (1800-1900), Liverpool Mercury (1811-1900), Northern Echo (1870-1900) Pall Mall Gazette (1865-1900), Reynold’s Daily (1850-1900), Western Mail (1869-1900) and The Times (1785-2009). The search in The Times was extended to 2009 in order to provide a comparison with the 20th century. Searches were performed using Lancaster University’s instance of the CQPweb (Corpus Query Processor) corpus analysis software (https://cqpweb.lancs.ac.uk/; Hardie, 2012). CQPweb’s database is populated from the newspapers listed, using optical character recognition (OCR), so for older publications in particular, some errors may be present (McEnery et al., 2019). Statistics The occurrence of each of the five search terms was calculated per million words within the annual output of each publication, in CQPweb. This is compared to a background distribution constituting the corresponding words per million for each search term over the total year range for each newspaper. Within the annual distributions, for each search term and each newspaper, we determined the years lying in the top 1% (i.e. p<0.05 after application of a Bonferroni correction), following Gabrielatos et al. (2012). These are deemed to be years when that search term was in statistically significant usage above its background level for the newspaper in which it occurs. For years when search terms were significantly elevated, we also calculated collocates at range n. Collocates, in corpus linguistics, are other words found at statistically significant usage, over their own background levels, in a window from n positions to the left to n positions to the right of the search term. In other words, they are found in significant proximity to the search term. A default value of n=10 was used throughout, unless specified. Collocation analysis therefore assists in showing how a search term associates with other words within a corpus, providing information about the context in which that search term is used. CQPweb provides a log ratio method for the quantification of the strength of collocation.

The UK's COVID-19 response has provided the police with new powers which potentially impinge upon civil liberties, altering the nature of policing activities. National policing bodies have encouraged a compliance not coercion approach based upon the 4 E's of Engage, Explain, Encourage and Enforce. In an innovative collaboration between the University of Portsmouth and Hampshire Constabulary, this research considers the impact of pandemic policing on the police and the public. It seeks to analyse the experiences of police officers and police leaders in exceptional circumstances and to explore the physical and psychological challenges of pandemic policing. This knowledge will provide evidence of i) organisational resilience, risk identification and effective decision-making, ii) strategies for the maintenance of future service delivery and iii) the impact of pandemic policing on police wellbeing. The research will also consider how the worldviews of individuals influence their perceptions of COVID-19 restrictions, their willingness to comply and key drivers of compliance/non-compliance which will shape the medium-long term police response. This knowledge will provide evidence of iv) effective policing in a crisis, v) public satisfaction/confidence in the police, vi) whether and for how long the public are willing to suspend their civil liberties and vii) factors that underlie any social/spatial variability. The link between perceptions of police legitimacy and willingness to comply means this understanding is crucial. Research findings will be scaled up into evidenced-based policing policies/practices nationally and its impact assessed and practices modified over the period of the crisis and beyond.

The UK's COVID-19 response has provided the police with new powers which potentially impinge upon civil liberties, altering the nature of policing activities. National policing bodies have encouraged a compliance not coercion approach based upon the 4 E's of Engage, Explain, Encourage and Enforce. In an innovative collaboration between the University of Portsmouth and Hampshire Constabulary, this research considers the impact of pandemic policing on the police and the public. It seeks to analyse the experiences of police officers and police leaders in exceptional circumstances and to explore the physical and psychological challenges of pandemic policing. This knowledge will provide evidence of i) organisational resilience, risk identification and effective decision-making, ii) strategies for the maintenance of future service delivery and iii) the impact of pandemic policing on police wellbeing. The research will also consider how the worldviews of individuals influence their perceptions of COVID-19 restrictions, their willingness to comply and key drivers of compliance/non-compliance which will shape the medium-long term police response. This knowledge will provide evidence of iv) effective policing in a crisis, v) public satisfaction/confidence in the police, vi) whether and for how long the public are willing to suspend their civil liberties and vii) factors that underlie any social/spatial variability. The link between perceptions of police legitimacy and willingness to comply means this understanding is crucial. Research findings will be scaled up into evidenced-based policing policies/practices nationally and its impact assessed and practices modified over the period of the crisis and beyond.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. The SHMI methodology does not make any adjustment for deprivation. This is because adjusting for deprivation might create the impression that a higher death rate for those who are more deprived is acceptable. Patient records are assigned to 1 of 5 deprivation groups (called quintiles) using the Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). The deprivation quintile cannot be calculated for some records e.g. because the patient's postcode is unknown or they are not resident in England. Contextual indicators on the percentage of provider spells and deaths reported in the SHMI belonging to each deprivation quintile are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there was a fall in the overall number of spells from March 2020 for England due to COVID-19 impacting on activity and the number has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Further information at Trust level is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. There is a shortfall in the number of records for Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RA2), and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRF). Values for these trusts are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. There is a high percentage of invalid diagnosis codes for Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RN5). Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. A number of trusts are currently engaging in a pilot to submit Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) data to the Emergency Care Data Set (ECDS), rather than the Admitted Patient Care (APC) dataset. As the SHMI is calculated using APC data, this does have the potential to impact on the SHMI value for these trusts. Trusts with SDEC activity removed from the APC data have generally seen an increase in the SHMI value. This is because the observed number of deaths remains approximately the same as the mortality rate for this cohort is very low; secondly, the expected number of deaths decreases because a large number of spells are removed, all of which would have had a small, non-zero risk of mortality contributing to the expected number of deaths. We are working to better understand the planned changes to the recording of SDEC activity and the potential impact on the SHMI. The trusts affected in this publication are: Barts Health NHS Trust (trust code R1H), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RGT), Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (trust code RJ6), Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RVR), Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (trust code RYJ), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RM1), and University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RTG). 6. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

This indicator is designed to accompany the SHMI publication. The SHMI includes all deaths reported of patients who were admitted to non-specialist acute trusts in England and either died while in hospital or within 30 days of discharge. Deaths related to COVID-19 are excluded from the SHMI. A contextual indicator on the percentage of deaths reported in the SHMI which occurred in hospital and the percentage which occurred outside of hospital is produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there was a fall in the overall number of spells for England from March 2020 due to COVID-19 impacting on activity for England and the number has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Further information at Trust level is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. There is a shortfall in the number of records for Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RA2), and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRF). Values for these trusts are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. There is a high percentage of invalid diagnosis codes for Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RN5). Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. A number of trusts are currently engaging in a pilot to submit Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) data to the Emergency Care Data Set (ECDS), rather than the Admitted Patient Care (APC) dataset. As the SHMI is calculated using APC data, this does have the potential to impact on the SHMI value for these trusts. Trusts with SDEC activity removed from the APC data have generally seen an increase in the SHMI value. This is because the observed number of deaths remains approximately the same as the mortality rate for this cohort is very low; secondly, the expected number of deaths decreases because a large number of spells are removed, all of which would have had a small, non-zero risk of mortality contributing to the expected number of deaths. We are working to better understand the planned changes to the recording of SDEC activity and the potential impact on the SHMI. The trusts affected in this publication are: Barts Health NHS Trust (trust code R1H), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RGT), Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (trust code RJ6), Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RVR), Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (trust code RYJ), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RM1), and University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RTG). 6. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. As well as information on the main condition the patient is in hospital for (the primary diagnosis), the SHMI data contain up to 19 secondary diagnosis codes for other conditions the patient is suffering from. This information is used to calculate the expected number of deaths. 'Depth of coding' is defined as the number of secondary diagnosis codes for each record in the data. A higher mean depth of coding may indicate a higher proportion of patients with multiple conditions and/or comorbidities, but may also be due to differences in coding practices between trusts. Contextual indicators on the mean depth of coding for elective and non-elective admissions are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there was a fall in the overall number of spells for England from March 2020 due to COVID-19 impacting on activity and the number has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Further information at Trust level is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. There is a shortfall in the number of records for Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RA2), and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRF). Values for these trusts are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. There is a high percentage of invalid diagnosis codes for Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RN5). Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. A number of trusts are currently engaging in a pilot to submit Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) data to the Emergency Care Data Set (ECDS), rather than the Admitted Patient Care (APC) dataset. As the SHMI is calculated using APC data, this does have the potential to impact on the SHMI value for these trusts. Trusts with SDEC activity removed from the APC data have generally seen an increase in the SHMI value. This is because the observed number of deaths remains approximately the same as the mortality rate for this cohort is very low; secondly, the expected number of deaths decreases because a large number of spells are removed, all of which would have had a small, non-zero risk of mortality contributing to the expected number of deaths. We are working to better understand the planned changes to the recording of SDEC activity and the potential impact on the SHMI. The trusts affected in this publication are: Barts Health NHS Trust (trust code R1H), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RGT), Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (trust code RJ6), Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RVR), Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (trust code RYJ), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RM1), and University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RTG). 6. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. The SHMI methodology includes an adjustment for admission method. This is because crude mortality rates for elective admissions tend to be lower than crude mortality rates for non-elective admissions. Contextual indicators on the crude percentage mortality rates for elective and non-elective admissions where a death occurred either in hospital or within 30 days (inclusive) of being discharged from hospital are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there was a fall in the overall number of spells for England from March 2020 due to COVID-19 impacting on activity and the number has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Further information at Trust level is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. There is a shortfall in the number of records for Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RA2), and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRF). Values for these trusts are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. There is a high percentage of invalid diagnosis codes for Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RN5). Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. A number of trusts are currently engaging in a pilot to submit Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) data to the Emergency Care Data Set (ECDS), rather than the Admitted Patient Care (APC) dataset. As the SHMI is calculated using APC data, this does have the potential to impact on the SHMI value for these trusts. Trusts with SDEC activity removed from the APC data have generally seen an increase in the SHMI value. This is because the observed number of deaths remains approximately the same as the mortality rate for this cohort is very low; secondly, the expected number of deaths decreases because a large number of spells are removed, all of which would have had a small, non-zero risk of mortality contributing to the expected number of deaths. We are working to better understand the planned changes to the recording of SDEC activity and the potential impact on the SHMI. The trusts affected in this publication are: Barts Health NHS Trust (trust code R1H), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RGT), Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (trust code RJ6), Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RVR), Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (trust code RYJ), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RM1), and University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RTG). 6. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.

These indicators are designed to accompany the SHMI publication. The SHMI methodology does not make any adjustment for patients who are recorded as receiving palliative care. This is because there is considerable variation between trusts in the way that palliative care is recorded. Contextual indicators on the percentage of provider spells and deaths reported in the SHMI where palliative care was recorded at either treatment or specialty level are produced to support the interpretation of the SHMI. Notes: 1. As of the July 2020 publication, COVID-19 activity has been excluded from the SHMI. The SHMI is not designed for this type of pandemic activity and the statistical modelling used to calculate the SHMI may not be as robust if such activity were included. Activity that is being coded as COVID-19, and therefore excluded, is monitored in the contextual indicator 'Percentage of provider spells with COVID-19 coding' which is part of this publication. 2. Please note that there was a fall in the overall number of spells for England from March 2020 due to COVID-19 impacting on activity and the number has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Further information at Trust level is available in the contextual indicator ‘Provider spells compared to the pre-pandemic period’ which is part of this publication. 3. There is a shortfall in the number of records for Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RA2), and Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RRF). Values for these trusts are based on incomplete data and should therefore be interpreted with caution. 4. There is a high percentage of invalid diagnosis codes for Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RN5). Values for this trust should therefore be interpreted with caution. 5. A number of trusts are currently engaging in a pilot to submit Same Day Emergency Care (SDEC) data to the Emergency Care Data Set (ECDS), rather than the Admitted Patient Care (APC) dataset. As the SHMI is calculated using APC data, this does have the potential to impact on the SHMI value for these trusts. Trusts with SDEC activity removed from the APC data have generally seen an increase in the SHMI value. This is because the observed number of deaths remains approximately the same as the mortality rate for this cohort is very low; secondly, the expected number of deaths decreases because a large number of spells are removed, all of which would have had a small, non-zero risk of mortality contributing to the expected number of deaths. We are working to better understand the planned changes to the recording of SDEC activity and the potential impact on the SHMI. The trusts affected in this publication are: Barts Health NHS Trust (trust code R1H), Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RGT), Croydon Health Services NHS Trust (trust code RJ6), Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust (trust code RVR), Frimley Health NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RDU), Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust (trust code RYJ), Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (trust code R0A), Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RM1), and University Hospitals of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust (trust code RTG). 6. Further information on data quality can be found in the SHMI background quality report, which can be downloaded from the 'Resources' section of the publication page.