Really worrying document from SAGE published, modelling 'population immunity'.
"When R is 1.1, only 9% of the remaining susceptible
population need to be infected for R to fall to 1, solely as a result of the natural dynamics of the epidemic"
The document seems to discuss the idea of 'population immunity' - the hope seems to be that current measures will maintain the R at 1.1, until ~9% more of the population gets infected, which will lead to R dropping to 1, and cases plateauing.
Given this is approx the same proportion of the population that has been infected, and has resulted in >60K deaths across the UK, I wouldn't be characterising this as 'only 9%'. This scenario will lead to millions of infections, cases of LongCOVID, and thousands more deaths
The ONS estimates ~50K daily cases of COVID-19. It's very likely we will have 15-20K daily cases at least when we exit lockdown (in the best case scenario). This equates to 150-200 daily deaths among those cases (seen with a lag of 3-4 wks), and continuing to see >1000 deaths/wk.
This isn't a strategy. It's negligence.
It's going to have a hugely detrimental impact on public health, continue to overwhelm the NHS, disrupt routine care, disrupt education, and maximal economic impact through long-term need for restrictions
There are so many countries across the world who have done this well. We have the resources to do the same- why have we rejected the strategies of countries like Taiwan, Thailand, Japan, Australia. Controlled viral spread through the population is not a strategy.
We may have a vaccine around the corner, but it will take months, if not a whole year to roll-out population wide (assuming high uptake, which may or may not happen). But none of this affects the need for a multi-pronged approach to control the virus now.
If anything, the optimism around a vaccine should re-emphasise the importance of really investing in control of the virus now. Every death is preventable, and this is what we should be striving to do- prevent further morbidity, and mortality from COVID-19.
Controlled spread is not a solution. Strategies of control by natural immunity have been rejected by almost all public health organisations.
Why does the UK govt appear to be considering a strategy that's been rejected by almost the entire scientific community?
Actually, someone correctly pointed out to me that SAGE isn't the govt, so we don't know if the govt is actually considering this. I really hope not.
The govt needs to urgently articulate what its post-lockdown strategy is. We recently made clear recommendations as to what a sustainable strategy could look like, based on evidence, and global experience.
We only have a few wks- what is the govts long-term plan?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Our letter in the Lancet today- signed by 79 world-leading scientists - outlining key recommendations for a sustainable COVID-19 strategy within the UK. Thread.
We are in the second wave in England - seeing >20K COVID-19 cases/day and ~340 deaths/day - largely due to failures of govt policy. Lockdowns are needed when public health strategies to control the epidemic fail. It's essential the govt learns from this, and uses this time well.
What can we do to prevent being in the same position in a few months time? Here are our recommendations:
1. We need to urgently reform the find, test, trace, isolate and support system.
It's clear the current privately run system isn't fit for purpose.
There have been recent reports of the mink farm related outbreak in Denmark which has received attention in the media, and has concerned many scientists, and health organisations. What's happening in Denmark now is important. Here's why. Thread.
There have been reports of transmission related to mink farming across several countries over the past few months. The recent outbreak in Denmark suggests that a mutated strain of virus passed from minks to humans, and then spread across humans.
Mutations in SARS-CoV-2 occur regularly, and most have minimal or no impact on viral fitness, as far as we can see from the data. But animal reservoirs can be more important in this regard. Mutations in a virus occur randomly through natural processes.
A few thoughts on these interpretations, that appear to suggest (with caveats) that schools in England haven't necessarily contributed much to transmission. The evidence presented here does not necessarily support this. A thread.
The lower number of cases identified among 0-10 yr olds ignores the fact that we know that children are likely to be asymptomatic and mildly symptomatic, which means that symptom-based testing is likely to vastly underestimate infections in this age group
There have been significant clusters of infection of COVID-19 identified in schools (both primary and secondary). These form the majority of clusters of acute respiratory incidents identified related to COVID-19 since September.
A thread on where we are with the COVID-19 pandemic in England, and what we need to do urgently based on current evidence. This thread also explores why the govt Tier 1-3 strategy is nothing but a distraction from the actual public health response needed. 1/N
As we know, the PHE data shows an exponential increase in daily confirmed cases of COVID-19. We are currently seeing between 25-30K daily cases. This is likely an underestimate as testing capacity has been reached. Moreover, increases are occurring across all of England. 2/N
Predictably increase in case numbers have translated over time into increasing hospitalisations across all of England, with regions in the North likely to hit NHS capacity soon if we don't act. While increases in the South appear slower, these are only lagging 3-4 wks behind. 3/N
tw: misogyny, discrimination, harassment in academia
A thread about my observations from academic and other contexts. I've felt compelled to write this after realising how the deliberate framing of these issues prevents any change in the status quo, and perpetuates injustice.
As women, many of us face misogyny in our workplaces, and in society on a daily basis. Here, misogyny is defined not as hatred of women, but rather structural patriarchal norms that have certain expectations from women & penalise those who break these, or speak out against these.
Of course, discrimination is intersectional, with ethnic minority women likely to fare worse in these systems. Much like with racism, experiences of women are often shaped by daily micro-aggressions - including a dismissal of their expertise, their discomfort, and their feelings.