The language (tending towards hyperbole - my interpretation) here is not that of a scientist, but we’re none of us free from this, I guess! @dgurdasani1 like you I’m concerned about this PHE-derived narrative, particularly when conclusions defy physical laws.
/1
‘Antibody seroprevalence rates in students & staff were generally similar to regional community rates, both at the start & end of the Autumn term, albeit with wide confidence intervals.’
Looks like ‘direction’ of infection from students over time, no?
/2
Physical laws:
1. Is there any difference in SARS-CoV-2 viral load comparing children & adults?
3. Are there unique characteristics of school environments that introduce ‘clinically important’ mitigations against airborne pathogen transmission?
Answer: Not in the UK, no.
Crowded, enclosed, poorly ventilated.
Finally, what has been the impact of the JCVI’s decision to expand the seasonal flu [another airborne pathogen, even accepted by WHO 2019!] vaccine to school age children, 2013 onwards?
So next time you hear a PHE linked figure explain that schools are NOT sites for SARS-CoV-2 epidemic amplification, please ask them what IPC controls are in place: their statement will only hold for those implementing rigorous airborne mitigations.
End. @dgurdasani1@chrischirp
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
‘…ask yourself if the authors are truly trying to inform their readers or if they are instead trying to advance a narrative that would be undermined if they fully enumerated how COVID-19 has harmed children.’
/1
Email: 20/12/20
Dear [INSERT MP]
I am writing to request your help towards highlighting the need for urgent revisions to the current PHE UK Covid-19 infection prevention & control (IP&C) personal protective equipment (PPE) policy for all “front line” health & social care staff.
To-date, three UK-based reports demonstrate significantly greater risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or death in non-ICU UK patient-facing healthcare workers (HCWs):
The most recent (28th October) is from the BMJ (doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3…), with data on 158,445 Scottish HCWs...
...(1st Mar – 6th June 2020) indicating that: "patient facing HCWs compared with non-patient facing HCWs, were at higher risk [of SARS-CoV-2 infection] (HR 3.30, 2.13-5.13)...after sub-division of patient facing HCWs into…front door, ICU, non-ICU aerosol generating settings...
“What we have got to do is work out some balance which actually keeps [Covid] at a low level, minimises deaths as best we can but in a way that the population tolerates..,” @CMO_England 1/4/21
137 HCW deaths since 08/20
HCWs tolerate FFP3 but only ICU teams get them: why?
'Dynamic CO-CIN report to SAGE and NERVTAG
Includes patients admitted after 01 August 2020
There are 104666 patients included in CO-CIN. Of these, 21177 patient(s) have died & 18043 required ICU. 62747 have been discharged home.' @trishgreenhalgh
Full quote: As a healthcare worker, my overwhelming impression of the response of WHO teams to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is that they failed on the most fundamental aspect: i.e. truthfully describing its transmission characteristics.
/1
Through actively & persistently denying that SARS-CoV-2 transmission occurred via the airborne route, WHO teams have *amplified* the pandemic, caused huge waste in surface cleaning measures & allowed nation states' IPAC policies for HCWs & their population to remain...
/2
'Our estimates are that in the post-intervention [FFP3] period there was a 37% reduction in staff off sick with Covid-19 even accounting for immunity. The effect of this multiplied across the entire NHS in avoiding staff sickness, long Covid, & even death would be enormous'
'In our study it is reassuring that the overwhelming majority of staff members (79%), following eight weeks of enhanced respiratory protection with FFP3, stated their preference to continue their use'
Another notable finding: 10/11 HCWs who knew the reason for changing to FFP3 (i.e. increased @CUH_NHS staff sickness) wanted to continue using FFP3 after the study period.
I'm guessing you didn't even need to show them an IPAC 'disaster graphic' like this @mjb302? @microlabdoc
Theoretical mechanisms - differential glycosylation: 'SARS-CoV-2 produced in individuals with distinct blood groups may differ in their glycosylation patterns, which could impact the binding and susceptibility of SARS-CoV-2 in respiratory epithelium and subsequent transmission'
And just for you @MicrobiomDigest: 'These observations suggest that nasal microbiome communities can influence efficient airborne transmission of respiratory viruses'.