These studies are heavily flawed, and are don't include any of the larger, and less biased studies that contradict this view. There are ample studies with larger sample sizes, including from the ONS, that show primary school children play an important role in transmission.
And completely misses the direct impact on children from Long COVID. 12% of primary school children have symptoms lasting > 5 wks. We need to look at this based on the breadth of evidence, and the design of these studies- which unfortunately even many scientists haven't done.
The ECDC paper is extremely flawed, and quotes largely studies from symptom based testing designs, which we know hugely underestimate the impact of children on transmission. And from periods when either community tranmission was low, or school attendance was low in many regions.
If you look at the less biased literature- the findings are far more consistent. Primary school children transmit- and in some cases transmit more than adults. And due to higher contacts in school, children are more likely to be index cases, and contribute to transmission.
And the first study you quote is a study with 13 index cases- we know that like adults, the majority of children don't transmit. There are ample studies with large sample sizes, including from the ONS, that show high secondary attack rates from index cases who are children.
Why are these never quoted? Why is the evidence around schools so cherry picked to ignore the majority of studies that are less biased - and consistently show the opposite. Why do people consistently only present studies that are so heavily flawed, to reach flawed conclusions?
If you want to look at the breadth of evidence, including studies that have less flawed designs - please look at this:

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Deepti Gurdasani

Deepti Gurdasani Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @dgurdasani1

1 Feb
I've recently come across a disinformation around evidence relating to school closures and community transmission that's been platformed prominently. This arises from flawed understanding of the data that underlies this evidence, and the methodologies used in these studies. Image
Let's look at the paper being cited here. This study published in Nature Human Behaviour examined >50,000 interventions (at fine scale) across >200 countries. The number of countries examined allowed examination of these in depth.

nature.com/articles/s4156…
As the authors state, the key strength of the study is that examination across so many different contexts allowed a disentanglement of interventions. The authors used four approaches, including a case-control analysis to specifically deal with this issue. Image
Read 12 tweets
26 Jan
On @BBCOS today discussing the tragedy of exceeding 100,000 COVID-19 deaths in the UK, and what led to this.

19:03 for a bit and then 19:23 onwards:
bbc.co.uk/iplayer/live/b…

Also, a few thoughts in a thread below:
The PM said during the briefing today, that the govt did the best they could. He was 'deeply sorry' for every single death.

If every single death is a tragedy, then why didn't we treat every death as preventable?

Why did we repeatedly talk about 'tolerable deaths'?
How on earth can he say he did his best, when UK policy was almost never evidence based - and the govt invited proponents of the ideology of naturally acquired herd immunity to brief him on policy- at a point in time we urgently needed to act to prevent thousands of deaths?
Read 16 tweets
23 Jan
Thread on the recent report on the possible risk of increased death associated with the new UK variant (B117)- with a discussion of the evidence around this, and what this means.
First, there is strong evidence to support increased transmissibility of B117 - current estimates of increased transmissibility range between 30-70% - from epidemiological evidence examining the differential rate of growth of B117 with respect to other variants & increase in R
There is also evidence from PHE contact studies that the risk of transmission from those carrying the B117 variant is ~50% greater than with other non-B117 variants.
Read 27 tweets
19 Jan
Very concerning report - 47 cases of the 501Y.V2 (variant arisen from South Africa) reported in surveillance within the UK. This is the variant with the E484K mutation that has been associated with significant escape from antibodies in the laboratory. 🧵

gov.uk/government/new…
More information on the variant here.Using plasma those infected in the 1st wave (with robust antibody responses) >90% showed reduced neutralisation with the variant and 48% showed complete escape. How this translates to vaccine response isn't clear yet.

Antibody neutralisation is only one part of the immune response. T cell adaptive responses are also important, but the early data on reduced neutralisation are concerning. We need to look carefully at vaccine effectiveness against this variant.
Read 7 tweets
18 Jan
But it isn't less from kids than adults!! That's the point. Where is the evidence to support that?

WE certainly have evidence to the contrary? Even from within England.
The evidence from England is actually the *opposite* that children were *more* likely to bring infection into the household, and when they did *more* likely to transmit. So this is just not correct. And it should be corrected, given this isn't evidence based at all.
The PHE contact tracing data isn't suitable to assess transmission for children. There's been so much written on this- symptom based testing underestimates susceptibility & transmission from children. The ONS data are available & much less biased- and do not back up this claim.
Read 4 tweets
18 Jan
This is flawed interpretation of data, and should be corrected. I see experts constantly read biased evidence on child transmission at face value, despite this being inconsistent with less biased studies even from the same context. My thread linked below:

Short summary: Symptom based contact tracing has always underestimated the secondary attack rates in children. Just compare contact tracing results even from the previous variant in England from the recent PHE report to the ONS household infection survey. Starkly different.
Why? Because symptom based contact tracing
1. Hugely underestimates children as index cases (less likely to be symptomatic)
2. Often mis-assigns *index caseness* to adults who are subsequently affected because the child was asymptomatic & not tested initially.
Read 9 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!