Absolutely unbelievable. @MattHancock, this is literally the only thing you really need to get right, and you can't even do that. I have no words really. I'm just disgusted. #HancockOut
For everyone saying oH iT's ChAnNeL 4 nEwS, fake news, here's the govt guidance where it's clear care homes are still expected to take residents with coronavirus: gov.uk/government/pub…
"... as well as for the impact of vaccines on severe outcomes.
Reevaluating these assumptions as more data on the real-world effectiveness of the Pfizer and AstraZeneca vaccine on infection and transmission come in will help to clarify the potential impact of Steps 1–4"
Imperial - a head-scratcher:
"Assuming optimistic vaccine efficacy, even if 2.7M vaccine doses/week.. to 1 August (2.0M thereafter), only 44.6% of the popn. will be protected against severe disease (due to vaccination/recovery from infection) by 21 June" assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
Government introduced measure after measure, restriction after restriction, which it claimed would all definitely help, with no discussion about the potential harms.. (2/10)
(Excellent piece on the damage caused by failing to acknowledge uncertainty here) bmj.com/content/371/bm…
Since March I have believed lockdowns will be more damaging to long-term public health than Covid.
Eventually, as the public are slowly exposed to such counterarguments, the government runs the serious risk of undermining public confidence... (3/10)
Main finding is a non-significant difference in infection rates between groups (those advised to follow social distancing only, vs those advised to follow social distancing AND wear a surgical mask when outside the home)
Those in the mask group were given 50 surgical-grade masks for a 1 month period, plus instructions on their proper use.
Masks: 3 layer, disposable, surgical face masks (TYPE II EN 14683 [Abena]; filtration rate, 98%).
Mask use is uncommon in the community in Denmark (<5%).
Public health measures at the time incd quarantining infected people, social distancing, limiting social interactions, hand hygiene, limiting visitors in hospitals & nursing homes. Shops & public transport remained open. Cafés and restaurants were closed during part of the study.
Currently, both 'sides' attempt to delegitimise the other's viewpoints by describing them in the extreme;
'Lockdowns until vaccine' vs. 'let it rip'
I won't get into those issues, but wanted to show that this has never been clear cut.
How has SAGE guidance evolved over time?👇
March 4: “School closures will be highly disruptive and likely to present an unequal burden to different sections of society... [SAGE] have divergent opinions on the impact of not applying widescale social isolation at the same time as recommending isolation to at-risk groups...
.. One view is that explaining that members of the community are building some immunity will make this acceptable. Another view is that recommending isolation to only one section of society risks causing discontent."
Point of order raised by the opposition, that Hancock said a week ago that there was a trial about Vitamin D in coronavirus and there was no effect. He was in fact talking about a review of secondary evidence, and indeed it looks like there is an effect
Hancock now talking about coronavirus restrictions, balance, etc. Interrupted -
MP - asks that parliament by involved in any future lockdown decisions
Characteristics of people testing positive for COVID-19 in England, September 2020 - @ONS
- Increases in least deprived areas
- Mostly aged <35
- Higher rates from those who travelled abroad
- Asian/Asian British people more likely to have antibodies
In people aged under 35, positivity rates increased amongst those reporting having had 'socially-distanced direct contact' with 6 or more people aged 18-69
"In recent weeks, positivity rates have been higher amongst people who have travelled, although rates have increased in both groups. Credible intervals are wide in those who have travelled abroad"