The PM says he 'totally gets the issue of holiday hunger'. Here are a few reminders of a few facts (1) news.sky.com/story/free-sch…
Food bank use over the past five years has soared. (2)
A recent food strategy report called for more free school meals to address child hunger. (3)
In 2019 Professor Philip Alston, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, wrote the following: (4)
Professor Alston went on to say about Universal Credit: (5)
And he raised concerns about the use of sanctions on perhaps one in twelve benefit claimants: (6)
And the impact of Universal Credit under this government has not allayed child poverty. A Joseph Rowntree report estimated universal credit would fall for unemployed people between 2016 and 2020. (7)
During the coronavirus surge in unemployment the govt has increased Universal Credit by £20 per wk which increases the median replacement rate of income across all employees from 50 to 53 per cent, and among single people from 23 to 30 per cent. Welcome but not revolutionary. (8)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In the press conference Prof Van Tam admitted that circuit breakers work less well as cases rise. And that cases are rising in every region. That's why SAGE argued for a short 2 week circuit breaker a month ago. (1)
He also supported the PM arguing for both central and local contact tracing. Yet the evidence shows local contact tracing (complex below) is working at levels above 95% and call centre tracing at 55% which is dismal. Investing in local systems is far more effective. (2)
Deloitte's test results within 24 hours is down to 25%. This is hopeless. Again investment in the 44 NHS molecular virology labs which are linked to local GP NHS systems would be far more effective than the private Lighthouse labs. (3)
We’re in a mess. Cases, hospitalisations and deaths are all rising. It's too late for test and trace to stop it. Things will just get worse. We have FOUR options: (1)
Option 1. LOCAL LOCKDOWNS: politicians don't want a national lockdown, so local restrictions only. But RISKS are that cases and deaths rise, with possible exponential spread (as in March), even if death rates r lower than Mar/April because more vulnerable people will shield.(2)
Option 1 risks (cont): other countries will block travel to and from UK, NHS overload, indirect NHS casualties from other conditions will mount, many people off work, economy falters like last time. (3)
The Barrington Declaration from the quadrangles of Yale, Stanford + Oxford: "People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity." (1) Er....No.
How long does immunity last?
Will herd immunity be achieved?
What about Long Covid?
Sweden tried this with 582 deaths/million, Norway 51 deaths/million didn't.
How practical is shielding 30% of the population? No data.
What are their death projections v economic benefits?
(2)
It seems odd that the countries who failed to tackle the pandemic effectively, which the Barrington people want, suffered the biggest economic hit. (3)
Karl Friston's model suggests that LSHTM/Imperial/Academy of Medical Sciences projections of numbers of deaths in a second wave are way too high. But a functioning ‘find, test, trace, isolate, support programme’ will keep them even lower. (1) medrxiv.org/content/10.110… (pre-print)
Prepare now for a winter peak warned the Academy of Medical Sciences..."It estimates the number of COVID-19-related hospital deaths (excluding care homes) between September 2020 and June 2021 could be as high as 119,900." (2) acmedsci.ac.uk/more/news/prep…
Davies, Kucharski et al from LSHTM state “We projected a median unmitigated burden of 23 million (95% prediction interval 13–30) clinical cases and 350 000 deaths (170 000–480 000) due to COVID-19 in the UK by December, 2021.” (3)
Colin Mathers, former coordinator of mortality and burden of disease statistics at WHO, raises challenging issues over ownership of global health data. (1) biomedcentral.com/epdf/10.1186/s…
He asks whether it is sustainable and politically acceptable for WHO to devolve data ownership and coordination to the Gates-funded Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation at Univ of Washington in Seattle. (2) @richardhorton1@IlonaKickbusch@devisridhar@fgodlee
"The current (WHO) administration does not seem concerned that WHO reports are publishing inconsistent statistics from IHME and from UN Interagency Groups." (3)