3/ Delta is more pathogenic, the question is by how much, surely this means the chance of risk is increased for everyone, children will still have lower risk than someone older and unvaccinated
4/ But I guess its important to say that there are other ppl who agree we don't need to worry about Delta in schools
6/ Viner says children have innate natural cross protection from T-Cells.
He has a paper to back that up, from Ladhani
7/ Remember recently where they divided deaths by total under 18 population, death rate is low but this minimises
Now who was using that stat recently?🤔
8/ Vaccinating will save some children's lives but not that many.
9/ Viner says don't worry about long covid, vaccine risk could be higher, but does he have a study I hear you ask.
Certainly does, written by Ladhani and co.
10/ Long Covid, transmission, vaccination, DCT rather than isolation, masks, they've got a while body of evidence for why we don't need mitigations or vaccination for students
13/ Viners April 2020 study has been one of the UK government’s main source of evidence that children are less likely to transmit, its guided policy and is in the updated green book (local gov rulebook)
14/ Viner has consistently gaslighted campaigners on school safety,
I think the interview on #r4today after masks had been removed shows him making factually incorrect claims about UK school safety measures
15/ After schools moved to keyworkers during the Alpha wave DfE select committee had a meeting where they concluded schools hadn't played a meaningful role in transmission and this wasnt why they were closed
The second screenshot is arguing against vaccinating now.
17/ Still arguing there's very little evidence that transmission occurs in school
18/ Ladhani works with PHE, 1. What he claims happens with positive cases
2. DfE Guidence that education settings have been following
In secondary we were checking seating plans and sending home who they sat next to #edutwitter
19/ I like how they use the "Children need a union line"
I mean every child does needs someone to be their voice, but do they want that voice to be arguing for their right to be infected?
20/ Yep, Children really need a voice to explain why its unethical not to run experiments removing isolation in schools without asking for consent of other pupils if they want to be sitting with a close contact.
🧵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