Ok, so let's be clear on what people have been saying which is is that *current death rates* in the UK are >2x higher than *Western Europe*. This is entirely true. This tweet uses *cumulative deaths* which is misleading & conflates Europe with W. Europe.
There is *no doubt* that early lockdowns would've saved lives. A small first wave does not mean a large exit wave, as many SE Asian countries & Israel showed pre-delta. Those that did have large 2nd waves had these because of alpha spread from England!
This is frankly just wrong. We know that earlier lockdown would have meant R dropping below 1 earlier, meaning tens of thousands of lower deaths- it's literally basic transmission dynamics - R dropping below 1 means lower area under curve.
Nope- again not right- the higher case rates in the UK are not just down to testing because death rates are 2x higher than in W. Europe?- how do you explain that if it's just better case ascertainment. But of course you know that.
With extremely high community transmission, we need multi-layered approaches & high grade masks (as are mandatory in Austria, France, & many parts of Germany)- so this isn't quite right. A single measure isn't sufficient esp if you allow large gatherings:
Strawman alert! Literally *no one* has said that lockdowns are the only way to bring down cases. In fact scientists have repeatedly advocated for multilayered measures to prevent these, because lockdowns represent failure of policy & lack of early action.
No- we've had 14,000 deaths since July 19th, & rising long COVID in young people due to avoidable mass infection. Going into school opening with high transmission led us to where we are now. Early & fast always best, as Dr. Mike Ryan (WHO) has also said.
There may be uncertainty, but everything is going in the wrong direction. And we're an exceptional case once again. Uncertainty shouldn't mean inaction. It should actually mean proceeding with more caution:
Lockdowns happen when governments delay public health measures until too late. Scientists have been arguing for masks, ventilation, vaccination, support for isolation which have little/no negative impacts. Why're we portrayed as 'pro-lockdown' when we're trying to prevent them?
Almost every single interview I've done in the last few days has involved the interviewer conflating public health measures like mask wearing, social distancing etc. with lockdowns, speaking about a 'balance' between mental health & economic impacts and health. Please do better.
There is no dichotomy here. Masks, ventilation, vaccination, are all essential to contain COVID-19, and therefore essential to protect health, economy, and freedoms - because if we don't put these measures in place, it is likely we'll need more severe restrictions.
Letter from our council today to parents.
'Schools are working hard to balance safety' with 'children receiving the education they deserve'...
Don't children deserve safety and education, especially when making their environment safer is what ensures they can stay in school?π§΅
The next bit tells contacts they don't need to isolate, but are advised to get a single PCR test. The first bit of advice is to 'wash your hands for 20 secs'.
Kids are expected to 'wear a face covering.. where they encounter lots of people in an encloses space'.. except schools!
I couldn't bring myself to read the rest. Our children are being let down badly- by govt, by JCVI, by RCPCH, former PHE (now UKHSA), and local authorities. I feel completely hopeless for our children- who are getting infected in droves, while other countries protect theirs.
I've seen the Immensa scandal drop off the media, but unfortunately the impact of the estimated 43,000 tests is still being felt, and will sadly accumulate over time. Some of this can be seen in case rates being v. high in the SW, the region most affected. Threadπ
This thread is to try and understand or quantify to some level what the likely present and future impact of the missed 43,000 or so tests is likely to be. I'm going to present some calculations to illustrate this - these calculations are illustrative & not necessarily predictive
So, we know from govt announcement, that an estimated 43,000 PCR tests were falsely deemed negative over a 35 day period (8th Sept-12th Oct). So for *illustrative* purposes, let's divide the missed cases into 7 intervals (each 5 days) during this period.
Concerned at the lack of understanding of basic public health principles. Let me correct this.
"We are asking asymptomatic children to test, so we can detect infection before it spreads to others, so we can keep children & families safe & not fuel transmission in schools"
Most transmission happens at the pre-symptomatic stage, and many children are asymptomatic. They have the same virus levels and replicable virus as those who are symptomatic, and can transmit. It's mass superspreading in schools that causes absenteeism, not protective measures.
Having mass transmission in schools is far from harmless. Why aren't you advocating for urgent mitigations + vaccination of children, rather than pushing for misinformed policies that are likely to expose even more children to the impact of COVID-19
Interesting paper out in JID examining viral load, and viral replication in <=21 yr old children with COVID-19 in the US. TL;DR
-viral loads & virus replicability do not vary by age
-highest viral load 0-2 days after symptoms
-asymptomatic children are likely infectious too!
π§΅
We often hear that children are possibly less susceptible to infection than adults, and that older children are more susceptible than younger children. Much of the evidence around this is based on flawed studies that relied on symptom-based testing.
Younger children are more likely to be asymptomatic and missed on routine testing, which is reliant on children developing symptoms, and being tested. This study compares virus loads across age groups - and among asymptomatic and symptomatic children, and mild and severe illness.
The 43K false negative test error is not minor. If you consider an R=1 & even 1 generation of infection (likely more, considering the 35 day period over which errors occurred), it's likely that >43,000 more people got infected which means a significant no of avoidable deaths.π§΅
It's not enough to say 'people will be notified but site names won't be released'. This is a huge issue- there needs to be transparency with the public & we need to know numbers underestimated in different regions so we can correct regional trends.
We also need urgent transparency on where the 43,000 figure comes from. How do we know the extent of the problem, and how sure are we that this doesn't extend back further, or more samples were not affected? There needs to be an urgent independent enquiry.