Cold take: mutations happen all the time. I would like more information on this new variant, especially before it's linked to the rise of cases in the south east
The expert view on the variant is considerably more cautious than Matt Hancock's
As so often, @alanmcn1 puts it best. Catching this variant is a tremendous achievement, but study is ongoing, so *it is important to keep a calm and rational perspective* sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reactio…
Based on this and conversations with experts it seems as if the idea that the strain is faster-spreading is mainly conjecture
It's been found in the SE, where cases are rising, but *any* variant will be found in the the place with most cases. Correlation ≠ causation
One expert said the Health Secretary might well have "put two and two together and made six"
We shall see - but for now, the most important fact is that there is no evidence this variant is more severe or that it will undermine vaccine efficacy
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
I just wish I knew what an online harm actually was
Funny to see the online harms bill positioned as a blow against big tech when it will give them the power to make sweeping decisions on enforcement while simultaneously making it much harder for smaller competitors
Rule of politics: displays of strength are often signs of weakness. Online harms delegates many aspects of justice to tech companies. It's effectively an admission that the state can't do the work itself
Yesterday SAGE released a one-page document called "potential trajectories for covid-19 in the next six months"
It's not going to brighten your day, but it's one of the best summaries of where we are and where we're heading
Some notes 🧵
1. The “first” and “second” waves are very different
The second is growing much slower because of the impact of social distancing. Before this lockdown, contact rates were about half of pre-lockdown levels
But that's still not low enough.
2. Social distancing needs to be very extensive
SAGE: “With a basic reproduction number of 3, controls need to reduce infectious contacts by two thirds”
For a rough sense of what they means in practice, here's a chart of movement in London. It's been above 33% since June
Incredible story in The Times, which I'm told is definitely true. For most of its existence, the contact tracing app for England and Wales has been using the wrong risk threshold, so it's hardly been sending out any alerts telling people to self-isolate thetimes.co.uk/article/softwa…
One of the biggest complaints about the app has been ghost messages saying "you've been near someone with covid-19". If the risk threshold hadn't been artificially high, many of those alerts would have been instructions to isolate
As it was, people were told to ignore them
The Times has described this as a software bungle. I understand the issue was incredibly human. There was meant to be a change to the risk threshold on the app, but no-one went in and made the update
Today, every media outlet carries shots of young people partying in Nottingham before Tier 3 came into force
In reality, confirmed cases in the city have been falling since early October, including among the young
This may well be because testing isn't picking up infections - and it seems as if cases in Nottinghamshire are rising among older people, which is a real concern
But the picture from pillars 1 and 2 doesn't seem to bear out the idea that young people are flouting restrictions
A graph to illustrate that point, using a fantastic app from @VictimOfMaths (ht @Telstar22995931). A huge spike among 15-to-24-year-olds (okay, students) which flattened off several weeks ago