Have seen different analyses including latest Imperial paper saying there's no evidence the new variant spreads disproportionately faster among children. The data that suggests higher rates among those age groups is because schools were open, not because they transmit more 1/
More evidence/analysis needed, but the point is that, while schools are kept open, even children spreading the new variant on a neutral basis is bad enough. Four days of cases 50k plus should tell you/the government that the best way to control the new variant is to shut down 2/
as many parts of society as possible, until a vaccine can be up and running. The new variant is in control. This is not about economy versus public health, it is no longer a choice. Imperial study says new variant has an extra R advantage (my term) of 0.4-0.7, which means this 3/
comes down to a simple budgeting exercise. Do anything you can to reduce R. Closing schools does that. Yes it is horrendous for education, and for the economy. But the flipside is the new variant runs out of control leading to many more in hospital and dead 4/
The new variant is not *more dangerous* to an individual, but nor is it less dangerous - so it is about sheer scale and magnitude - on the neutral basis, more cases mean more hospitalisations and this means more deaths 5/
On 23 December I asked Matt Hancock why we weren't going into full lockdown across country given new variant had seeded everywhere and it was faster-spreading. He said tiers were still applicable because it was still concentrated in the SE. It is clear that that is no longer 6/
the case. Since then, hospital admissions (England) are up to 2,800 a day. NHS staff are sounding the alarm. So the question is, as I asked on 23/12, why aren't we going into full lockdown now? 7/7
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
