One of the points of contention about Covid transmission (for reasons I find hard to understand) has been whether children infect other members of the household, e.g., their parents. The question's a bit more interesting now that most parents are vaccinated. (1/4)
Although one can't provide definitive evidence by looking at Covid rates, it is at least possible to test a simple prediction that follows from a model in which children get infected at school and then infect their parents. (2/4)
In particular (all things equal):
a) increases in rates among children should precede those among adults, and
b) increases in rates among adults of parental age should precede those of other adults.
(3/4)
So far the data seem pretty consistent with this model. But causal inference isn't easy, and there may be other models that could explain these data (scratches head). What other theories are there? (the more absurd the better).
You might recall that “behavioural fatigue” was a previously unheard of phenomenon invoked by government advisers (chiefly Chris Whitty, it seems) to justify their (mistaken) belief that the public would not comply with lockdowns that lasted more than a couple of weeks.
In response, a large group of behavioural scientists signed an open letter asking for the evidence for this alleged phenomenon that they’d never heard of. (They never received an answer).
The minister for education is very keen for children to learn Latin. So here’s a thread with some Latin that I’d like @GavinWilliamson to learn. (All Latin etymology via etymonline.com).
An easy one for starters:
1)Virus. Latin for “poison”.
2)Transmission. From Latin transmittere "send across, cause to go across, transfer, pass on," from trans "across, beyond" + mittere "to release, let go; send, throw"
3)Mitigation. From the Latin mitigatus, past participle of mitigare "soften, make tender, ripen, mellow, tame," figuratively, "make mild or gentle, pacify, soothe".
Order has been restored, and the link between cases and hospital admissions seems to be re-established. But this still leaves the puzzle of what happened in the middle of July, when cases and admissions briefly became unstuck.
On this graph, the black line shows the number of cases we'd expect, based on the number of (subsequent) admissions. The actual number fits the prediction (postdiction, technically) very nicely, except in the circled area.
The puzzle isn't what caused the spike. Pretty much everyone seems happy to lay the blame on football (people watching in groups indoors).
The puzzle is twofold:
1) Why didn't the case spike produce an admissions spike? 2) How did the spike dissipate so quickly without a trace?
My TL is absolutely full of people who look at this graph and *still* want to say “the link is broken” or “the link has weakened” or “the jury is out”. So let me have another go at explaining a distinction that confuses some people (and is wilfully abused by others). [THREAD]
Of course vaccines have reduced the proportion of cases that lead to hospitalisation. I'm not denying that. I've published research about how important it is that we talk about the high efficacy of COVID vaccines, because this could increase vaccine uptake.bpspsychub.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
Anyone who wants to claim that the link between cases and hospitalisation has been "broken" or "severed" might like to explain why the red line (cases) and the blue line (admissions) have been moving in near-perfect synchrony since the start of June.
One of the things I was at pains to point out in this interview is that we haven't broken the link (0:25).
Some people were confused that the plot above had separate scales on the left and right. This version might help. Note that hospitalisations are actually coming 7 days later than the case specimen date; the plot takes the lag into account so you can see the lines moving together.
Someone posted this image (with no text) in response to some info about vaccination clinics. The highlighting draws attention to there having been more deaths among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated. So let's briefly review why these numbers mean *you SHOULD get vaccinated*.🧵
The bottom row of the table shows that among the over-50s, there were 50 deaths among people who'd been double-vaccinated versus only 38 among those who hadn't been vaccinated. So it's better not to get vaccinated, right? Wrong!
This is an example of what psychologists call the base-rate fallacy. If you made this mistake, don't feel bad, because pretty much everyone does, including experienced health-care professionals who confront this problem daily. Here's some more info. thedecisionlab.com/biases/base-ra…