From the Office of Statistics regulation: In the context of the pandemic there are three things which governments should consistently do to support transparency: (1) osr.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/osr-state…
1. where data are used publicly, the sources of these data or the data themselves should be published alongside any press briefing and associated slides to allow people to understand their strengths and limitations (2)
2. where models are referred to publicly, particularly to inform significant policy decisions, the model outputs, methodologies and key assumptions should be published at the same time (3)
3. where key decisions are justified by reference to statistics or management information, the underlying data should be made available (4)
"When data and associated information are made available it should be done in an orderly way, and in a way that is equally accessible to all." (5)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Scientific models vary according to the assumptions made. Compare here the projections for Covid19 deaths under four different epidemiological models (Imperial, LSHTM, Warwick, and Public Health England/Cambridge) and the dynamic causal model of Professor Karl Friston. (1)
Here are the four epidemiology scenario models which all show much higher daily death rates than the 'first wave' (dotted line). These informed government policy. (2)
This slide shown to COBR shows the steady rise in death rates up to the first wave peak in about one month's time. (3)
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)