Pilots for Daily Testing to replace isolation are starting.
Finally got a copy of the operational handbook and official FAQs
Government isn't following the science
2/ Basics: Close contacts take a LFD at the start of school for 7 days to avoid isolation.
All the experts I know say these tests aren't reliable enough for this purpose.
Book says LFDs will catch the majority of cases, this is a bit of an assumption, but it will miss cases
3/ Close contacts doing DCT can only go to school, they must isolate when not in school. This is because they know this does carry a risk. So why are they doing this, seems like the DfE are balancing risk of higher transmission with reducing isolation.They'e trying to be clever🤦♂️
5/ Justifications. General gist is more people will engage with this who wouldn't have bothered isolating.
Oh and it allows parents to work, economy over health mentally writt large
4/Says the benefit is more positive cases could be found, however this could be done with testing at home. And finding more positive cases who are mixing with others when they would have been isolating does seem helpful to me
6/ Again it says this won't detect all cases, but because it will find more cases its worth it.
Not of they are in school when they should have been isolating, isolating and again this argument is happening
7/ They come into school for the morning test, might improve test reliability due to supervision. However a positive test means they mixed on the way to school, what about getting home?
Try to get on a quiet bus, that's their actually solution!
8/Another issue is that they only take the test for 7 days, incubation rate can be longer tha 7 days particularly looking at some of the B117 studies
9/ Accepts these tests aren't good enough for international travel
10/ Consent, This is totally shocking.
Only the close contact who chooses not to isolate has to give consent.
Everyone else who has to share that space, their consent isn't asked, imagine if they're from a CV household.
11/ DfE is saying they are going to run a live experiment in schools with a highly infectious disease which they acknowledge may increase risk of transmission, and the vast majority of guinea pigs aren't even asked going to be asked if they consent.
Absolutely shocking
Also some of the language in the handbook makes reference to if parents have the chance to do DCT in their workplace, so it seems that they hope to roll this out more widely.
After using the pilot schools as guinea pigs. Would love to see the modelling they did on this
FOI time?
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
🧵Oh what a suprise, Together Declaration are part of this network, and members of the Exec like UsForThem founder Kingsley accused anyone who said they were a hard right political project of smears and defamation
2/ Founded as anti-lockdown but going straight into anti-vax talking points, Together then switched to anti Ulez, anti net zero heading towards climate change denial
3/ They have been one of the main groups peddling nonsense about the WHO pandemic treaty, starting two years ago with Farage then becoming the leading face of a new astroturf group
While much of the media claims the inquiry is accomplishing nothing, its slowly revealed the gov knew transmission occurs in schools and causes harm to a not insignificant number of children
2/ The bill gives the Secretary of State the power to add to the list of interests that can access your childrens data through secondary legislation avoiding parliamentary scrutiny
3/ The Bill also permits 14-18 year olds to be targeted with political marketing
3/ More and more evidence emerges of the long term harms caused by covid, but the UK govs preferred paedatricians continue to peddle claims that with enough infections children will develop lasting immunity
Said this would occur after 1 infection, what is it now? 5? 7? 10?🤷♂️
🧵Cass Review
Not had a chance to read the whole thing yet, but have had time to look through the main points
What positives can be taken from it? The time spent on waiting lists was identified as a major issue, all children's services are massively underfunded at the moment
2/ I would like to think that this will lead to an investment in all children's support services like CAHMS, more pastoral support in schools etc
That would be a positive outcome, regardless of what else is included in the review, unfortunately real terms cuts are the reality
3/ What matters is how government interprets the review and what it chooses to implement, additional funding for children isn't going to be prioritised over tax cuts to appease RW papers
Imagine if the billions from last round of tax cuts had instead been invested in children