No @IndependentSage briefing today, but I don't want anyone to go into withdrawal though lack of data so here's a short thread on cases and positivity rates.
Overall it's good news.
Positivity rates low and falling or flat across all nations and most of local authorities.
Cases per 100K per week have plateaued for Scotland, England and Northern Ireland with slight falls in Wales.
This is good news, especially after some slight rises previously.
Positivity rates look even more encouraging.
All nations are well below the 5% threshold and continuing to decrease week on week.
Looking more closely at England, all regions seem to be quite flat in terms of case numbers, but still way down from where we were at the start of January.
The North East has seen the biggest week on week drop in cases per 100K.
Yorkshire and Humber saw a slight rise and remain at over 100 cases per 100K.
Regional positivity rates show a slightly different picture most regions are flat or falling with the exception of the North East.
Positivity has increased in the North East, potentially suggesting something strange going on with testing?
Most other regions have seen falls with the exception of Yorkshire and the Humber whose positivity rate remains the highest of any English region.
Just under half (139 out of 315) of English LTLAs showed slight week on week increases in cases per 100K albeit from low levels. This means most fell.
Most Scottish, Welsh and NI LTLAs showed slight week on week reductions in cases per 100K.
A similar story for positivity rates.
117 out of 315 English local authorities' positivity rates increased week on week albeit from low levels. Again positivity decreased in most regions.
Most Scottish and Welsh LAs showed decreases week on week and all NI LAs decreased.
Over all it looks like a positive picture with cases flat or falling in all regions both in terms of absolute numbers and in terms of positivity rates.
As always, huge thanks to Bob Hawkins for his help with preparing the charts.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Today the Royal Society will meet to discuss “Fellows’ behaviour”. Without doubt the fellow they will primarily be discussing is Elon Musk.
The behaviour may range from his public dissemination of unfounded conspiracy theories to his attacks on the science
🧵
1/38
Musk is also an important figure (some would argue the most important) within a US administration that is laying siege to science and to scientific inquiry itself.
2/38 researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-world-…
The new administration’s executive orders have restricted research, silenced climate scientists and cut funding, as part of a systematic targeting of the scientific community.
3/38
Here's what I think we should be doing to ensure that the UK (and indeed other non-US countries) does not suffer the same fate.
🧵
1/37
The United States is currently witnessing an unprecedented assault on its scientists and scientific institutions, driven by populist agendas that prioritise ideology over evidence.
These orchestrated attacks threaten the foundations...
Silence will not shield scientists from the consequences of an increasingly hostile political landscape.
UK and other non-US scientists must act to support our US colleagues.
Here's what I think we should be doing...
🧵
1/35
Science thrives on collaboration and openness.
The people who practice science are committed to seeking truth and combatting falsehoods.
2/35
In an era where political forces increasingly seek to distort, suppress, or co-opt scientific knowledge for ideological purposes, the global scientific community must recognise that staying silent in the face of these challenges is no longer an option.
Fiona Fox’s recent article in Research Professional News cautions that expelling Elon Musk from the Royal Society could undermine public trust in science.
I disagree...
🧵
1/25 researchprofessionalnews.com/rr-news-uk-vie…
I think that this perspective overlooks the critical role that scientific institutions play in upholding ethical standards and defending the integrity of science, especially at times when science and scientists are subject to threats and intimidation from political institutions
2
It's imperative that scientists and their representative bodies actively engage in political discourse to protect scientific integrity, particularly when it is under direct threat, as has been clearly evidenced by recent developments in the United States
3 iflscience.com/us-science-is-…
After hearing some underwhelming testimony last month at the #COVIDInquiry on the use of respirators, @trishgreenhalgh and I decided to write a rapid response to the @bmj_latest to set the record straight.
Here's what we wrote...
1/15 bmj.com/content/386/bm…
"Respirators outperform surgical masks; fit-testing is desirable but not essential"
Professor Susan Hopkins (UK Covid Inquiry, 18th September 2024) claimed that evidence for the superiority of respirators (which are made to an industry standard and designed to fit ...
2/15
closely around the face) over medical facemasks (which are not generally made to any quality standard and often fit loosely, leaving gaps around the sides) is “weak”.
She also claimed that respirators are of little use if they are not fit-tested.
3/15 bmj.com/content/386/bm…
As the UK’s general election campaign enters its final few weeks, we’ve already seen numerous examples of dodgy declarations, substandard stats and graph gaffs.
So I thought I'd write about the importance of numeracy to the functioning of democracy.
🧵
We can expect to see more questionable claims in the run up to polling day.
The factor that all these all these missteps have in common is that they involve the manipulation or misrepresentation of numerical quantities.
One of the most hotly disputed figures of the campaign so far has been the Conservatives’ claim that Labour’s policies will, as Rishi Sunak put it, “amount to a £2,000 tax rise for everyone”. Labour have rebuffed this figure, arguing that... theguardian.com/politics/artic…