A short 🧵on school-age cases.
Firstly to say testing has changed dramatically over the last 6 weeks.
Lateral flow tests shot up prior to the return to schools stayed level for a while and then dropped a little before Easter and have risen since. 1/8
Cases (per 100k) in the under 20s saw big rises upon the return to school in all regions. In fact some cases seemed to stop falling before schools went back consistent with lateral flow tests catching more cases as testing ramped up before the return. 2/8
Drilling down further, roughly the same trend appears in 5-9s, 10-14s and 15-19s.
It wasn't seen in preschool children, but since January they had been attending nursery/pre-school as normal.
So how much of the rise in cases was a result of testing?
Definitely some of it, but...
The rises in positivity in the ONS survey (which uses randomised testing, so takes increases in LFDs out of the equation) illustrate that rises in school age children were genuine and not just a function of testing. 4/8
Rises in school age children didn't cause rises in parental-age adults (20-59) although cases did seem to flatten off somewhat over the period when schools returned and then fall again during Easter. Whether as a result of more testing or a genuine levelling off is hard to say...
But it doesn't seem to be there in quite the same way in the ONS positivity rates.
Levelling off is perhaps most evident in 35s-49s the bracket into which the majority of parents of school age children will fall. 6/8
The good news is that, as more adults get vaccinated the less likely we are to see rises in cases in these cohorts even while schools are back.
7/8
Overall its clear that the return to school had an impact on case numbers and positivity in school age children. Fortunately we had Easter as a handy fire-break 3 weeks in.
We'll keep an eye on what's happening over this next 6 week term.
8/8
Thanks to Bob Hawkins for his help in preparing the data.
• • •
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…