Today marks a milestone of sorts: the number of children under 14 who've tested positive for Covid in England just passed one million (1,003,787 to be precise). 🧵
This number underestimates the number of infections, of course, because a) there wasn't really any testing of children in the first wave (the graph shouldn't be flat prior to Oct 2020), and b) many children (especially younger children) are asymptomatic when infected.
And the figure doesn't include all children (15-17 year olds are in the same age band as 18 and 19 year olds, so it's hard to cleanly separate children and young adults).
All the same, a million cases is a lot of children. Over a third of these cases have been reported since the start of September this year (i.e., the last month and a bit).
And the numbers don't show any sign of slowing down. There was a brief dip after the initial meteoric rise in September, but cases are rising again now, and the rolling rate for 10-14s today is higher than it has ever been.
I don't really see the point of reiterating why it's a bad idea to allow so many children to be infected -- I don't expect to change anyone's mind at this point.
Nor does there seem to be much point in noting yet again how readily we could've done things differently, and still could, and how this would allow us to greatly reduce Covid transmission in the same way that other nations have done.
But what's the point? We seem to be a nation bent on self-harm. We kill off our old people, and practically force our young people to be infected with a disease that we still don't fully understand, and which seems to have long-term consequences for a disturbing number.
We're now recognising that the UK's early response to the pandemic was the worst public health failure ever. But it's largely the same people in charge, and they haven't finished failing. bbc.co.uk/news/health-58…
I don't have any positives to end on. Today I just want to mark the mega-failure to protect England's children. "Me paenitet, filii mei", as our PM might (should) say.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Colin Davis

Colin Davis Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @ProfColinDavis

16 Oct
I've focused on Wellingborough and Trafford previously, so let's take a look at Ipswich, which has the third highest rolling rate in the UK.
In the recent spike, cases initially took off around September 15th, among 10-14s (following a pattern seen all around the country). The increase among 15-19s was less steep, presumably reflecting the fact that many in the latter group are vaccinated.
A week later, around September 22, we start to see cases taking off among those in their 40s. "Parents!", you say. I couldn't possibly comment.
Read 5 tweets
9 Oct
An argument I've been trying to make for a long time is that mass infection of children is not only bad for children, but also bad for adults, because rates in children affect rates in adults (because that's how infectious diseases work). Here's another way of looking at that.🧵
This plot answers the following questions:

a) if I know Covid rates in school-age children (5-9s & 10-14s), how accurately can I predict rates in adults?

b) which adult age bands will I be able to predict most accurately?

[SPOILER: There aren't going to be any surprises here]
The data set covers the entire pandemic to date in England (30 Jan 20 - 3 Oct 21). The y-axis measures how well we can predict rates for a given adult age group on a given day if we know the rates for 5-14 year olds from 2 days earlier. (A value of 1 would be perfect prediction).
Read 9 tweets
28 Sep
Yes, I understand that not all adults in their 40s are parents of 10-14 year olds (the dashboard data doesn't list parental status, sadly). And that some 20-29s and 55-64s are parents of 10-14s (though not that many). But I hope you can see what I'm driving at in this plot.
Reasonable people can disagree about both the meaning and the import of the extremely high infection rate that we're currently seeing in children. I'm not interested in arguing with people who want to say I'm alarmist.
I'll just note that, *given the scale of the numbers*, the following things can simultaneously be true:

1. Most children who get Covid will experience a relatively mild illness AND a large number of children will have long-lasting symptoms, some very serious.
Read 6 tweets
28 Sep
[28/9 update] I'm switching to a log scale today, partly because of the scale of the numbers (the rate for 10-14s is now > 1400/100k) and because this makes the trends easier to see: growth is slowing in 10-14s, but is increasingly apparent among those in 40s and adjacent ages.
If you're suspicious of log scales, or just want to compare, here's the same plot on a linear scale.
And here's the animated version (log scale).
Read 4 tweets
26 Sep
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)
Read 4 tweets
27 Aug
Here we go again [LONG THREAD].

First we had “behavioural fatigue”. Now JCVI is invoking the notion of “vaccination fatigue” to explain falls in childhood immunisation.

theguardian.com/society/2021/a…
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).

behavioralscientist.org/why-a-group-of…
Read 23 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(