🧵DCT trial results are being trumpeted by Telegraph today.
I was one of those saying they were unethical, and knowing how concerns of CEV families were treated in some of these schools I maintain that view.
I think its important to note the size and context of the trial.
Here's a link to the trial details.
The timing for the trial March to June was shortly after schools went back, cases were very low, Delta was still rising to dominance with cases starting to rise at the end.
This was when we had low Alpha transmission
47 control schools, 59 intervention schools had cases where DCT was relevant.
Note contacts identified by standard DfE guidence which we know is leaky (whole year groups aren't usually sent home from 1 case, particularly at this time)
Incidence was higher than index cases, thought this is due to not all schools actively reported cases and not all community diagnosed infections were reported or recorded.
The Orient LFD picked up 53% of PCR cases
We did not clearly demonstrate the superiority of the intervention.
"Despite the lack of statistical evidence" it should reduce absence rates but may be more limited
The margin of error for reducing transmission in this study is wide
Interesting that participation was lower in more disadvantaged areas, you'd think families less likely to be able to afford isolation would be keener to avoid it, could the higher liklihood of having an at risk family member have influenced this?
At some stages the interventions were paused because PH were concerned about Delta.
Can we apply a study done in low Alpha transmission to high Delta transmission?
Study has several limitations.
Did not directly measure in school transmission estimates based on community transmission
They did not estimate the impact of DCT in high incidence settings (as we have had now and will have in September)
Unclear if it can be generalised to other settings
They estimated in their calculations that having DCT increases weekly LFD from 30%-60%
Calculations assumed 1 positive case = 50 isolations
Does this study justify the headlines?
Why are PHE ppl and various ppl who keep saying transmission hasn't been an issue and schools and long covid is so rare we don't need to worry about measures crowing so much about this study?
I mean, the expert version of
"In your face people who thought not asking everyone involved for consent was unethical"
Seems a bit over the top when you read the study.
Worth noting only those who tested to skip isolation had to give consent.
I was told it was unfeasible for a school to get permission from all students...
My issues with the ethics and first hand account of how someone in a trial school was treated⬇️
To be honest in a lot of ways its irrelevant because Gov aren't even going to bother with DCT in September, children no longer count as close contacts.
I suspect this will just end up being used to say schools are low risk (when infections are very low)
But it will be interesting how many ppl who hold up this study as solid enough evidence to support a policy will also say we don't have enough evidence/data on child vax or long covid to worry about a strategy that chooses mass infection over vaccination
🧵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