Have been at conference in Belgium but media coverage suggests two important errors in emerging #CovidInquiry narrative that should be stamped on. 1/Confusion between seasonal and pandemic influenza and 2/Absence of intelligence about coronaviruses (1/8)
First, influenza is a genetically unstable virus. Every year there is genetic DRIFT which is why vaccines have to be fine tuned although many people will have some immune coverage from previous infections (2/8)
Periodically and unpredictably there is a genetic SHIFT which causes pandemics, as in 1918, 1957, 1968 and 2009. SHIFT is a radical change that, in effect, makes influenza a novel virus for the human population (3/8)
Learning from the impact of a SHIFT is a reasonable base to start planning for any novel respiratory virus because there is a limited range of potential means of transmission and interventions to manage these. Planning does not need to be virus-specific so much as adaptable (4/8)
Second, NERVTAG was created in 2016. The acronym stands for New and Emerging Respiratory Viral Threats Advisory Group, whose mission was horizon-scanning (5/8)
NERVTAG met 2-3 times every year to review reports collected by PHE about new influenza strains, about the search for a re-emergence of SARS and about any potential evolution of MERS to sustain human to human transmission (6/8)
SARS and MERS are both coronaviruses and were on the NERVTAG radar. NERVTAG also received some of the earliest news of an unidentified respiratory infection in Wuhan and followed this up (7/8)
NERVTAG did what it said on the tin. It scanned for threats, evaluated them and documented its assessments. If others were too busy with Brexit to read the reports, this is not evidence of absence of work by the civil service and public health community (8/8)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
As a sociologist, I am used to abuse from people who do not recognize my skill set in collecting and evaluating quant and qual information as a contribution to moral, ethical and policy debates. But sometimes my discipline is hard to defend against critics (1/9) @leoniedelt
Correctly applied, the precautionary principle requires advocates of any novel intervention, such as community-wide masking, to provide evidence that its benefits exceed its potential harms. (2/9)
The Cochrane Review uses long-established methods and evaluation criteria to show that community masking has ‘little to no benefit’ in reducing transmission. Mask advocates have failed to make their case for benefit. This will be outweighed by minimal levels of harm . (3/9)
JCVI's critics are having a pile-on about the release of minutes to the end of July. The minutes of the meeting that actually agreed the statement of 3 Sep have not yet been published. Some critics have obviously never been asked for policy advice. (1/6)
What the minutes actually show is JCVI considering a wide range of evidence from multiple sources - some of which the critics don't like - and the options available. This is absolutely what a committee like this is supposed to do. (2/6)
At the end of the process, which I was not involved in, a consensus was reached. Should JCVI have rushed to judgement on a selective review of evidence endorsed by iSAGE and friends? Is this a responsible way for advisers to approach a weighty matter? (3/6)
The wording of Javid's tweet was crass - but the sentiment was correct. His experience is the future of Covid as an infection and it is time to move on from the fear that is continuing to drive policy and paralyse everyday life. (1/5)
This does not mean that we should forget the suffering and loss of earlier phases of the pandemic. These should be appropriately memorialized and studied. How would we minimize such experiences next time? How do we honour the victims? But they should not frame the future. (2/5)
If we do not recalibrate or reboot our understanding of Covid to see it as a respiratory virus much like any other, we simply doom ourselves to an endless round of testing, outbreak controls, movement controls and the like. (3/5)
Some reorganization of govt science advice. When the music stopped, my roles on NERVTAG and JCVI have come to an end today. This was decided some weeks ago and has no bearing on any recent events. (1/5)
Public service is always a privilege. I am grateful to have worked with some eminent scientists who were open to sharing their knowledge and expertise. At 70+, opportunities to learn new and interesting things become rarer! (2/5)
I shall continue to work with the CMO's Moral and Ethical Advisory Group (MEAG). I look forward to discussing with others in the science policy community how science advice can be better provided in the next emergency. (3/5)
As a member of government advisory bodies, I have always felt it would be incompatible with that status not to wear a face covering where legally required to. However, I shall cease to do so from 19 July when these requirements lapse. (1/10)
I shall do this as an act of solidarity with all the people who have been exempt because of respiratory and neurodiverse conditions. (2/10)
I shall do this as an act of solidarity with all the people who have been exempt because of trauma induced by previous assaults or abuse (3/10)
I am seeing a lot of tweets about vaccinating UK teenagers and advocates getting air time in places like @BBCNewsnight As a JCVI member, I am constrained in what I can say right now. However, two things are worth considering (1/8)
The risk/benefit for teenagers must be firmly established. The UK programme has already been modified because the risk/benefit of AZ was not clear for 20 and 30 somethings. Teenagers are at intrinsically low risk from Covid. Vaccines must be exceptionally safe to beat this (2/8)
Given the low risk of Covid for most teenagers, it is not immoral to think that they may be better protected by natural immunity generated through infection than by asking them to take the *possible* risk of a vaccine. (3/8)