WE NEED To TALK ABOUT SCHOOLS.
Here are of the graphs and figures I presented at the @IndependentSage briefing on Friday along with our safer schools report: independentsage.org/wp-content/upl…
A short thread...
Lets start by acknowledging there is an increasingly polarised debate around closing or keeping schools open with both sides arguing their side passionately.
SAGE have suggested that schools might contribute between 0.2-0.5 to R. assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/upl…
If schools were closed this would serve to bring cases down more quickly.
Schools are also places of work. Both students and teachers need to be able to work in a safe environment.
Conversely, we know that closing schools increases inequality, leading to significant disruptions in learning, poorer nutrition, and social isolation for many.
Closing schools also hugely disruptive to working parents, many of whom cannot afford to stay at home.
So what is the current situation?
This graph shows the percentage positivity in England broken down by age group. The highest prevalence is currently in secondary age students (yellow) - at above 2%. Next up is people in school year 12 to age 24 (blue) at just under 2%.
In primary school (and Early Years) children the prevalence is lower, nearer to 1%.
These are high levels of prevalence, but it does look as if prevalence in all age groups is lowering as we enter the fourth week of the lockdown.
Looking at cases per 100,000 in different year groups (primary and early years first) we see an increase as children get older and an increase over time (in all year groups) up until the most recent week for which data is available when cases have started to fall.
The same trends are visible in secondary-age students with cases being higher than for primary-age students, but cases not yet falling in the latest week for years (7,8 and 9).
These are high levels of cases.
If Year 13 was a region it would be going straight into tier 3.
Some of the headline-grabbing figures from last week were that 22% of state secondary schools in England schools were missing school. Across all schools it is not quite this high (83% attendance).
It's important to state that only about half of the students not attending are off for confirmed COVID-related reasons.
The vast majority of these COVID-related missing pupils are because of potential contacts with infected individuals.
Only 0.2% of pupils are missing school because of confirmed COVID and 0.4% with a suspected case of COVID. The remainder are because of potential contact with infected individuals.
ONS estimates of prevalence at around 2% suggest a lot of COVID+ students are not being detected.
Finally 1% of state schools in England are closed. With a significant proportion of those due to COVID-related reasons. This has rise from about 0.4% the week before.
Clearly something has to be done about schools to make them COVID safe.
The @IndependentSage Safer Schools Report outlines a number of measure designed to make our schools safer places for our kids and for the excellent teachers who work in them. independentsage.org/wp-content/upl…
Perhaps the key take-home from the report is that there's no point telling schools they need to make themselves COVID-secure without providing them with the resources and the tools to help them do that.
/ENDS
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
A summary of the data I presented at this afternoon's @IndependentSage briefing taking in the latest on Cases, Hospitalisations and Death statistics.
On cases and hospital admissions, it's largely been a good news week.
A thread. 1/13
Cases first.
Across the whole of the UK reported cases have been falling for a couple of weeks now, and fairly steeply, although from a high peak.
We're down to a 7-day average of around 15,000 cases per day.
Across the country cases (per 100K) in most Local Authorities have fallen compared to where we were on lockdown day (3 weeks ago 5/11/20).
A few areas have gone backwards, but for most cases are coming down.
Maps by @TravellingTabby
In light of the announcements about Xmas, many people are asking me whether meeting up with friends and family over the holidays is 'safe'.
The honest (and unpopular) answer is that, simply because the government have sanctioned it, that doesn't make meeting up indoors safe.
In these situation there is only managed and mitigated risk.
If you are going to meet up with relatives then it's best to try to meet outdoors, or, if indoors, to try to ventilate the space as well as possible and take other precautions like wearing masks and social distancing.
If you can pay for a test before going to see loved ones then this may help, but being aware that you can test negative and still be incubating the virus is important.
Isolation beforehand might also help to reduce risk, but the length of isolation changes its effectiveness.
Our letter in the Lancet today - outlines key recommendations for a sustainable COVID-19 strategy within the UK. thelancet.com/journals/lance…
Thanks to @dgurdasani1 for pulling this all together.
In the UK we are currently in the middle of the second wave of the epidemic with cases over 20K per day and deaths averaging over 300 per day.
We are undergoing a second lockdown which is indicative of a failure of public health strategy.
We need to use the time bought by this lockdown wisely in order to prevent ourselves from being in the same situation in a few months time.
Here are our recommendations: 1. Urgently reform the find, test, trace, isolate and support system.
A summary of the slides from today's @IndependentSage briefing.
Slides prepared by the brilliant @chrischirp.
First up testing has stayed relatively flat for the last couple of weeks. Not ramping up like we might hope. Only rising Significantly in NI.
The proportion of tests being returned promptly is dropping in almost all settings (bad) but rising in care homes (good).
Confirmed cases still rising steeply. Cases delayed by Excelgate earlier in the week have been spread evenly over the days when data was missing.
I've noticed a consistent trend in people who like to pretend that all is well on the COVID front plotting graphs in a way which suits their purpose. This is the sort of graph they will show you for hospital admissions. Looks pretty good.
It's understandable they want to demonstrate that cases are low, but if you zoom in, you see a small, but appreciable rise in admissions over the last couple of weeks.
Here's the same trick but for patients curently in hospital. Looks like a rosy picture on this graph...
Antibody tests have the potential to be a game-changer. But many of them aren't all they're cracked up to be. In this article (and this thread) I explore at the impact of false positve and false positives in COVID-19 tests. theconversation.com/coronavirus-su…@ConversationUK@UniofBath 1/10
Cellex have had a test approved by the FDA. If you have antibodies against COVID-19 their test will tell you this correctly 93.8% of the time (this is the test’s “sensitivity”). If you don’t, it will get this correct 95.6% of the time (this is the test’s “specificity”). 2/10
Getting the correct result more than 90% of the time sounds pretty good. But there's a catch. To find out why lets consider testing 10,000 hypothetical individuals. The WHO suggested recently that as few as 3% of the global population may have had COVID-19 and recovered. 3/10