Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 99 on 16 December 2021. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 99 includes redactions of 21 junior officials.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://www.kcl.ac.uk/researchsupport/assets/internalaccessonly-description.pdfhttps://www.kcl.ac.uk/researchsupport/assets/internalaccessonly-description.pdf
Objectives: We aimed to identify psychological factors associated with the use of facemasks in shops in England following removal of legal requirements to do so, and to compare associations with and without legal restrictions.Design: Repeated cross-sectional online surveys (n ≈ 2000 adults) between August 2020 and April 2022 (68,716 responses from 45,682 participants) using quota sampling.Methods: The outcome measure was whether those who had visited a shop for essentials in the previous seven days reported always having worn a facemask versus sometimes or not at all. Psychological predictor variables included worry, perceived risk and severity of COVID-19 and the perceived effectiveness of facemasks. Socio-demographic variables and measures of clinical vulnerability were also measured. For the period following removal of legal restrictions, multivariable regression was used to assess associations between the primary outcome variable and predictors adjusting for socio-demographic and clinical vulnerability measures. The analysis was repeated including interactions between psychological predictors and presence versus absence of legal restrictions.Results: Worry about COVID-19, beliefs about risks and severity of COVID-19 and effectiveness of facemasks were substantially and independently associated with the use of facemasks. Removal of legal obligations to wear facemasks was associated with a 25% decrease in wearing facemasks and stronger associations between psychological predictors and wearing facemasks.Conclusions: Legal obligations increase rates of wearing a facemask. Psychological factors associated with wearing a facemask could be targets for interventions aiming to alter rates of wearing a facemask. These interventions may be more effective when there are no legal obligations to wear a face covering in place.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 100 on 20 December 2021. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 100 includes redactions of 20 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThe coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic had a significant impact on the spa and wellness industry worldwide as many establishments were forced to close to avoid gatherings of people in public areas. During a 2020 survey in the United Kingdom, **** percent of respondents from the spa industry stated that they planned to immediately reopen once lockdown restrictions had been removed or relaxed.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 67 on 12 November 2020.
The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) and any security markings. SAGE 67 includes redactions of 25 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 94 on 22 July 2021. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 94 includes redactions of 25 junior officials.
These minutes were updated on 4 February 2022 to remove a redaction with respect to the Human Challenge Study mentioned in section 4. The redaction had been requested by the study leads as they were preparing to publish their results in an academic journal. A paper has now been submitted for publication and the pre-print can be found at https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1121993/v1" class="govuk-link">ResearchSquare. The updated minutes contain no other changes with respect to the original version.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 58 on 21 September 2020.
This should be read alongside:
The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 58 includes redactions of 17 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 62 on 15 October 2020.
The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These minutes discuss the paper titled ‘Update on transmission and symptoms in children’, which was updated and presented again at SAGE 65. At SAGE 65, the consensus view on children and transmission was updated to reflect available evidence, and the minutes of SAGE 65 supersede these.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 62 includes redactions of 21 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThe Centre for Longitudinal Studies (CLS) and the MRC Unit for Lifelong Health and Ageing (LHA) have carried out two online surveys of the participants of five national longitudinal cohort studies which have collected insights into the lives of study participants including their physical and mental health and wellbeing, family and relationships, education, work, and finances during the coronavirus pandemic. The Wave 1 Survey was carried out at the height of lockdown restrictions in May 2020 and focussed mainly on how participants’ lives had changed from just before the outbreak of the pandemic in March 2020 until then. The Wave 2 survey was conducted in September/October 2020 and focussed on the period between the easing of restrictions in June through the summer into the autumn. A third wave of the survey was conducted in early 2021.
In addition, CLS study members who had participated in any of the three COVID-19 Surveys were invited to provide a finger-prick blood sample to be analysed for COVID-19 antibodies. Those who agreed were sent a blood sample collection kit and were asked to post back the sample to a laboratory for analysis. The antibody test results and initial short survey responses are included in a single dataset, the COVID-19 Antibody Testing in the National Child Development Study, 1970 British Cohort Study, Next Steps and Millennium Cohort Study, 2021 (SN 8823).
The CLS studies are:
The LHA study is:
The content of the MCS, NS, BCS70 and NCDS COVID-19 studies, including questions, topics and variables can be explored via the CLOSER Discovery website.
The COVID-19 Survey in Five National Longitudinal Cohort Studies: Millennium Cohort Study, Next Steps, 1970 British Cohort Study and 1958 National Child Development Study, 2020-2021 contains the data from waves 1, 2 and 3 for the 4 cohort studies. The data from all four CLS cohorts are included in the same dataset, one for each wave.
The COVID-19 Survey data for the 1946 birth cohort study (NSHD) run by the LHA is held under
"https://beta.ukdataservice.ac.uk/datacatalogue/studies/study?id=8732" style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">SN 8732
and available under Special Licence access conditions.
Latest edition information
For the fourth edition (June 2022), the following minor corrections have been made to the wave 3 data:
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 79 on 4 February 2021.
The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 79 includes redactions of 28 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 104 on 28 January 2022. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 104 includes redactions of 19 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterIntroduction: Accurate and rapid diagnostics paired with effective tracking and tracing systems are key to halting the spread of infectious diseases, limiting the emergence of new variants and to monitor vaccine efficacy. The current gold standard test (RT-qPCR) for COVID-19 is highly accurate and sensitive, but is time-consuming, and requires expensive specialised, lab-based equipment.Methods: Herein, we report on the development of a SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) rapid and inexpensive diagnostic platform that relies on a reverse-transcription loop-mediated isothermal amplification (RT-LAMP) assay and a portable smart diagnostic device. Automated image acquisition and an Artificial Intelligence (AI) deep learning model embedded in the Virus Hunter 6 (VH6) device allow to remove any subjectivity in the interpretation of results. The VH6 device is also linked to a smartphone companion application that registers patients for swab collection and manages the entire process, thus ensuring tests are traced and data securely stored.Results: Our designed AI-implemented diagnostic platform recognises the nucleocapsid protein gene of SARS-CoV-2 with high analytical sensitivity and specificity. A total of 752 NHS patient samples, 367 confirmed positives for coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and 385 negatives, were used for the development and validation of the test and the AI-assisted platform. The smart diagnostic platform was then used to test 150 positive clinical samples covering a dynamic range of clinically meaningful viral loads and 250 negative samples. When compared to RT-qPCR, our AI-assisted diagnostics platform was shown to be reliable, highly specific (100%) and sensitive (98–100% depending on viral load) with a limit of detection of 1.4 copies of RNA per µL in 30 min. Using this data, our CE-IVD and MHRA approved test and associated diagnostic platform has been approved for medical use in the United Kingdom under the UK Health Security Agency’s Medical Devices (Coronavirus Test Device Approvals, CTDA) Regulations 2022. Laboratory and in-silico data presented here also indicates that the VIDIIA diagnostic platform is able to detect the main variants of concern in the United Kingdom (September 2023).Discussion: This system could provide an efficient, time and cost-effective platform to diagnose SARS-CoV-2 and other infectious diseases in resource-limited settings.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 102 on 7 January 2022. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 102 includes redactions of 18 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 96 on 14 October 2021. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 96 includes redactions of 22 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 98 on 7 December 2021. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 98 includes redactions of 19 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 93 on 7 July 2021.
The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 93 includes redactions of 23 junior officials.
Facebook
Twitterhttps://digital.nhs.uk/about-nhs-digital/terms-and-conditionshttps://digital.nhs.uk/about-nhs-digital/terms-and-conditions
The aim of the publication is to inform users about activity and usage of GP appointments historically and how primary care is impacted by seasonal pressures, such as winter. NHS England publishes this information to support winter preparedness and provide information about some activity within primary care. The publication covers historic appointments, marked as attended or did not attend, from national to practice level coverage. The aim is to inform users, who range from a healthcare professional to an inquiring citizen, about appointments within primary care. The publication includes data from participating practices and Primary Care Networks (PCNs) using EMIS, TPP, Informatica, Cegedim (previously Vision) and Babylon (GP at Hand) GP systems. NHS England produce this information monthly, containing information about the most recent 30 months. The publication includes important information, however it does not show the totality of GP activity/workload. The data presented only contains information which was captured on the GP practice and PCN appointment systems. This limits the activity reported on and does not represent all work happening within a primary care setting or assess the complexity of activity. No patient identifiable information has been collected or is included in this release. Between December 2020 and present the data contained in this publication will no longer contain covid-19 vaccination activity collected from GP System Suppliers as part of the General Practice Appointments Data. These appointments have been removed using the methodology outlined in the supporting information. In order to gain a more complete picture of general practice activity we will publish covid-19 vaccination activity carried out by PCN’s or GP Practice’s from the NIMS (National Immunisation Management Service) vaccination dataset. This publication now includes statistics on the duration of appointments, SDS role and the recorded national category, service setting and context type of the appointment. Both HCP Type and SDS role are currently presented for comparison purposes, but moving forward the intention is to only publish SDS Role Groups and remove HCP Type. Further information can be found in the supporting guidance below. Appointments recorded in Primary Care Network (PCN) appointment systems are included within this publication at national level from June 2023.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 78 on 28 January 2021.
The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 78 includes redactions of 27 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 80 on 11 February 2021.
The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 80 includes redactions of 31 junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 105 on 10 February 2022. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 105 includes redactions of XX junior officials.
Facebook
TwitterThis is a record of the discussion of SAGE 99 on 16 December 2021. The paper is the assessment of the evidence at the time of writing. As new evidence or data emerges, SAGE updates its advice accordingly.
These documents are released as pre-print publications that have provided the government with rapid evidence during an emergency. These documents have not been peer-reviewed and there is no restriction on authors submitting and publishing this evidence in peer-reviewed journals.
Redactions within this document have been made to remove any names of junior officials (under SCS) or names of anyone for national security reasons. SAGE 99 includes redactions of 21 junior officials.