John Bye Profile picture
10 Apr, 19 tweets, 8 min read
We now have data from mass testing in schools for the first 4 weeks after they fully reopened on March 8th, up to the end of the spring term.

The results suggest that transmission of the virus *has* increased since schools went back .. but mostly amongst staff.
Starting with nurseries and primary schools, the data initially looks rather alarming, with a huge jump in positivity rates the week after schools reopened.

However...
The data is also broken down by role within the school, and we can see that the government started rolling out free lateral flow tests for support and household bubbles to use at home when schools fully reopened.

These are included in the main school test figures!
If you break down positivity rates by role, you can see covid rates are MUCH higher in these bubbles.

Some of this may be genuine, and some of it may be selection bias (people with symptoms using the tests, or people being less likely to report negative results than positives).
If we focus only on staff, whose testing regimen didn't change during this period as far as I know, we can see the proportion of tests reported positive DID rise though, from 0.08% to 0.12%.

(Ignore the mid-Feb bump - it's an artefact caused by much less testing at half term.)
In secondary schools things initially look rather different, with overall positivity rates staying low when schools reopened, before exploding a couple of weeks later.

Again though, this doesn't tell the whole story...
Because in secondary schools pupils are also tested, and their numbers completely dwarf all other testing.

The number of tests used jumped from 350,000 to 830,000 a week as the first pupils were tested prior to returning, then to over 4 million a week when their classes started!
Again, if we break the data down by role, we can see that when pupils returned to school they had lower positivity rates than staff.

This masked the fact that positivity rates for staff were already rising the week that schools reopened, before that could have had any impact.
Again, if we focus only on staff, there's a significant rise in positivity rates, from 0.05% to 0.1%.

Positivity was already rising as schools fully reopened, after a February half term dip, and continued climbing for two weeks after millions of children returned to classrooms.
Meanwhile we can see that actually very few children tested positive when they returned to school.

Positivity bottomed out at 0.047%, barely above the lateral flow tests' false positive rate, which is now believed to be 0.03%.

A couple of weeks later though, rates rose rapidly.
So is this proof that covid IS spreading amongst children in schools? Unfortunately it's not clear, because testing hasn't been consistent.

When pupils first returned they were tested three times under supervision in school.

After that they started testing themselves at home.
If we go back to the testing data, we can see that the number of test results reported by pupils dropped sharply a week and a half after they returned to school. Just as home testing began.

Either some children stopped using the tests and/or they didn't report all their results.
Either of these could skew positivity rates.

You're more likely to use a home test if you're not feeling well (whereas nobody with symptoms should have gone to school to get tested).

And if you do take a test you're (hopefully) more likely to report the result if it's positive.
In fact, even the first round of testing in schools was far from perfect. Although the results were reported, about 12% of tests taken in the first two weeks after schools reopened weren't registered.

Meaning that for over a million tests we have no way of knowing who took them!
The rate for positive tests is a bit lower - 452 positive results (8-9% of the total) weren't properly registered in the first two weeks.

You'd hope these children were still sent home to self-isolate. But even if they were, they may not have been contact traced because of this.
Other issues that may affect the data include:

- Staff who were previously working at home returning to school, increasing their exposure.

- Changes in access to confirmatory PCR testing reducing the number of false positives.

- Whether false positives are more likely at home.
This all makes it hard to say for sure what's happening.

Rates amongst staff have definitely risen since schools fully reopened, but levelled out at the end of March.

Rates also seem to have risen in pupils a week or two later, but this might be skewed by changes in testing.
The good news is that although positivity rates from mass testing in schools have risen significantly since schools fully reopened, they're still very low overall - about 1 in 1,000 at the end of March - and if anything rates amongst staff seem to have levelled off recently.
All of the graphs above are my own, based on data from the Tests Conducted spreadsheet that's released alongside the weekly Test & Trace report.

gov.uk/government/pub…

• • •

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

Keep Current with John Bye

John Bye 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 @_johnbye

11 Apr
Covid sceptics' latest cause is the banning of Denis Rancourt from @ResearchGate.

Everyone from @toadmeister to @ClareCraigPath and @profnfenton have tweeted support for him.

The problem is he's a racist crank with no expertise in viruses and a long history of writing nonsense. ImageImage
His recent output on ResearchGate (which he was repeatedly warned about before the ban) includes articles claiming "vaccines are inherently dangerous" and that the surge in deaths last spring wasn't caused by covid but was "mass homicide by government response". ImageImage
Before covid he was also a climate change denier.

A 2007 article claimed global warming was a "useful myth" that "deflects attention away from real world issues" such as "power-driven financiers, corporations and their cartels backed by military might".

activistteacher.blogspot.com/2007/02/global… Image
Read 12 tweets
9 Apr
Carl Heneghan's latest article for the @spectator shows the professor of Evidence Based Medicine is either misreading or misrepresenting the evidence.

At least 90% of the deaths he lists in an article called the "hidden death toll of lockdown" are actually covid deaths!
He says it's "hard to imagine, let alone measure, the side effects of lockdowns", and kind of proves that by listing lots of deaths that mostly have nothing to do with lockdown.

The data he's using seems to be from here:

app.powerbi.com/view?r=eyJrIjo…

So what does it actually say?
Claim 1) "28,200 more deaths among diabetics than we'd normally expect".

This is true, but very misleading. Because 23,667 of those "diabetes" deaths actually listed covid as the underlying cause of death!

So most of them definitely aren't lockdown deaths. They're covid deaths!
Read 16 tweets
27 Feb
The latest graph and interview from @RealJoelSmalley starts by claiming that the response to covid killed more people than covid itself, and ends with a wild theory that vaccination drove the surge in deaths in January!

Needless to say, there's no real evidence to support this.
First he claims that there have been almost 40,000 deaths over the last year due to denial of healthcare.

Many of them over the summer, when there were no excess deaths!

As he says in his podcast interview, "any analysis is worthless if the data that goes in is not good".
And his data is not good.

Instead of using the five year average, he generates a baseline curve that he believes deaths would have followed in 2020 without covid and lockdown.

But this is based purely on deaths in late January / early February, extended out to the whole year!
Read 26 tweets
31 Jan
Sceptics make wild claims about the number of deaths caused by lockdown, but there's no evidence to support them.

The vast majority of excess deaths last year were directly caused by ("from", not "with") covid-19.

So what do ONS and PHE data and academic studies actually show?
Removing covid deaths, you can see more clearly that despite 10 months of varying levels of restrictions, the only time there have been large numbers of non-covid excess deaths was during the first wave.

Mostly elderly care home residents registered as dying from dementia.
We now know that many elderly people suffering from covid experience confusion and delirium, often without a cough or fever.

This is obviously easily mistaken for other, pre-existing conditions.

The same thing is thought to happen with flu each winter.

bbc.co.uk/news/health-54…
Read 29 tweets
1 Jan
The latest Test & Trace report is out, covering the week before Christmas.

Cases in London and the South East were soaring, and an outbreak of coronavirus at the Lighthouse Lab in Milton Keynes caused further issues in the testing system as demand for tests rapidly increased.
There was another big increase in testing as demand rose, with increasing numbers of quick but less sensitive Lateral Flow Tests being used to screen asymptomatic people.

In total 2.6 million tests were done. But a higher percentage than last week were positive.
If you separate Lateral Flow (which are ONLY used on asymptomatic people) and PCR (which are used on both symptomatic and asymptomatic people) tests, positivity for PCR is back to the peak last seen at the beginning of November, while positivity for LFTs is rising fast now too.
Read 15 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!