This note describes a study to discover the extent to which it would be possible to follow the respondents in a 1978/79 social survey in inner Liverpool. The follow up would be used to describe the ways in which peoples’ circumstances had changed in the intervening 17 years. It would also provide an opportunity to discover how the respondents themselves viewed the changes that had taken place in inner Liverpool (if that was where they still lived) and the extent to which they had realized the aspirations they expressed in 1978/79 (wherever they now lived). An additional benefit of the research was to ‘test the water’ for forthcoming policy related research in Liverpool. The results of the pilot study are clear and unambiguous: it was not possible to follow up the previous respondents. Reasons for this are believed to include changing attitudes towards giving information and to reservations about collaborating in research projects which in the context of inner city Liverpool are seen to have no benefits to local people. The prognosis for future survey-based research is poor. These findings are consistent with more anecdotal evidence from colleagues working elsewhere in inner city areas and in sharp contrast to similar work undertaken in the very different political climate of the 1970s.

Estimates from infectious disease models have constituted a significant part of the scientific evidence used to inform the response to the COVID-19 pandemic in the UK. These estimates can vary strikingly in their bias and variability. Epidemiological forecasts should be consistent with the observations that eventually materialize. We use simple scoring rules to refine the forecasts of a novel statistical model for multisource COVID-19 surveillance data by tuning its smoothness hyperparameter. This article is part of the theme issue ‘Technical challenges of modelling real-life epidemics and examples of overcoming these’.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract