Thread by @dgurdasani1

Another thread that ignores data from the ONS & even recent PHE data post-delta emergence that show rises in transmission in school-age children preceded rises in other age groups & uses flawed serological methods that have been shown to underestimate infections in children.

https://twitter.com/ShamezLadhani/status/1414171283672215559

Why are less flawed methodologies never cited? Is it because they don't support these claims?
There's no doubt now that schools without mitigations play a substantial role in transmission. Let's stop denying this.

It's the denial of these very clear facts that's left our children without protections- from mitigations or vaccination.

If you're a scientist and your use of a biased methodology (symptom-based case ascertainment, routine serology without adjustment for underdetection in children) produces different results than less biased methods, then it's worth reviewing your methodology.

These are literally PHE's own results (which are biased by symptom-based ascertainment that disproportionately underestimates infections in children) Even these show that infection rates rose in secondary school children before other age groups. Look at the grey line.

Here's ONS data from last year showing that when there are lockdowns when schools are open, infections in children are the latest to drop & remain high, but when schools are closed, infections drop first in children & then the rest of the community (orange & red dashed lines)

Other evidence outlined in some of these papers:
thelancet.com/journals/lance…
bmj.com/content/372/bm…