We've been falsely told 'schools are safe', 'don't drive community transmission', & teachers don't have a higher risk of infection repeatedly by govt & their advisors- to justify some of the most negligent policies in history. 🧵

My thoughts on the govt announcement yesterday regarding a new viral strain potentially driving an increase in cases in London. The claim, at least from listening to the daily briefing seems to be based on the strain increasing in frequency more recently. 1/N

Cases have been rising exponentially in England- much of the increase being attributed to the South, although declines have slowed even in the North following easing of lockdown. Much of this is anticipated, and expected, given the behaviour of the virus. 2/N

SARS-CoV-2, like any other viruses mutates as it multiplies (albeit slower than influenza). Mutations occur randomly and most are 'neutral' - i.e. have little to no effect on transmission, ability to evade the natural or vaccine-related immune response

Having said that, few mutations have been shown to be less likely to be neutralised by plasma from patients infected by the usual (wild-type) virus. Whether this translates to a lower response to vaccines or higher risk of re-infection is unclear at the moment.

Also worth noting that just because a variant becomes more frequent in a region doesn't necessarily mean it offers a fitness advantage to the virus. Many mutations rise to different frequencies in different regions due to random processes. The frequency of strains varies globally

I've been seeing a lot of discussion around the dosage gaps recommended by government for the Astra/Oxford & Pfizer/BioNTech vaccines. My thoughts on the potential benefits & risks of such an approach, and the need for much greater transparency around these decisions. Thread.

The UK govt announced recently that both the Oxford & BioNTech vaccines would be now administered with a gap of between 4-12 weeks (so prioritise administration of first dose, given limited resources).

What is the basis of this?

The basis that's been discussed seems to be that
1) the first dose is likely to confer some degree of protection against disease, so better to roll this out as fast as possible, and
2) that for Oxford/Astra efficacy may be higher when the gap between doses is greater.

I discuss some of the technical details around the Oxford trial below for those interested in these. If you'd just like a summary of this, please skip to the summary tweet titled 'SUMMARY'.

What does published evidence show? The Astra/Oxford data are a bit messy because of protocol changes during the trial. This is because the trial was originally planned as a single dose trial, but a booster dose was added when developers realised that this would likely help.

I'm honestly at a loss as to understanding what our government is thinking & what evidence they're considering in enacting gravely negligent policies that will almost certainly lead to tens of thousands of deaths in the coming weeks. Thread.

To recap - NHS capacity is critical in many places. Hospitals have reported oxygen shortages, and doctors are talking about having to choose who to put on ventilatory support. We have rapidly rising case numbers, >50,000 daily reported cases & 981 deaths reported yesterday.

Let's remember that the impact of socialising over christmas hasn't even begun to show in our numbers yet. And that hospitalisations are indicative of infections that happened ~2-3 wks ago (since then we have been seeing exponential rises in cases).

This means even if we act today, and bring R to below 1 right now, hospitalisations will continue to rise for another 2 wks or so - in line with exponential rises in cases over the past 2 weeks. And deaths will continue to rise for 2-4 wks after we act.

Given current doubling periods, this means very conservatively, 20-30,000 deaths over the next 4 weeks or so, which we sadly can't do anything about now, because most of those who will die during this period have already been infected.

SCOOP: Seattle Public Schools tells teachers that the education system is guilty of “spirit murder” against black children and that white teachers must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

Let's review the whistleblower documents.👇

The trainers begin by claiming that teachers are colonizers of Native American "ancestral lands" and that “the United States was built off the stolen labor of kidnapped and enslaved Black people’s work, which created the profits that created our nation.”

The participants identify themselves by both gender pronouns and race labels. While it has become commonplace in academia to use gender pronoun identifiers, this is perhaps the first example of an institution creating the expectation for explicit race-labeling in the workplace.

The trainers tell white teachers that they "must commit to the journey" of anti-whiteness, even if their "lizard-brain" makes them "afraid that [they] will have to talk about sensitive issues such as race, racism, classism, sexism, or any kind of ‘ism.’"

The central message is that white teachers must recognize that they “are assigned considerable power and privilege” because of their “possession of white skin.” To atone for this guilt, they must “bankrupt [their] privilege in acknowledgement of [their] thieved inheritance.”

Newlane University Manifesto--12 tenets: 1. Education should be available and accessible to every person on earth; making quality education inaccessible or exclusive is immoral. Education belongs in the same category as shelter, clean water, and basic food.

2. Education should be disconnected from geography. Students should be able to learn anything from anywhere on earth. With few exceptions, tying education to geography is a form of exclusion.

3. Education should be disconnected from a schedule. The most effective time to learn something is when the student is ready, not when the teacher or institution is available.

4. Education should not be admission- or permission-based, but freely available upon the asking. The current admission-based system is a vestige of a scarcity model that could only fit a limited number of seats in a classroom.

(4 continued) No one should have to be admitted or ask permission to learn a subject.

I've been serving on grad admissions committees at MIT for 5 years - in EECS and Media Lab

If you want to get into a PhD at a place like MIT, here's a thread with some advice based on my observations

1/13

1. Grades do matter, especially in courses that are important for your chosen field

2. Research matters, even more than grades

3. Publications matter, but letters of recommendation matter even more

4. Your statement of purpose should be the cherry on top of the cake

2/13

When I say grades matter, it doesn't mean that you need 100/100 or A+ in every course. It does mean that you are expected to have strong competence (close to straight A/A+/A-) in technical courses relevant to your field of interest

3/13

While grades show competence, a PhD is about research. So, the more your application demonstrates research potential, the higher your chances for acceptance. It's not about the number of papers (if any), but about the quality of research you pursue

4/13

This is why the best evaluation of research potential often comes from letters of recommendation (LoRs)

Letters shed light on technical competence, creativity, work ethic, & personal interaction. All of which are important for a successful PhD

5/13

The Google Doc where the San Francisco school board did it's research for deciding which historical figures to cancel is public, and it's hilariously bad

The best part is the "Notes" tab, where someone lays out why the stated reasons are complete BS.

Case in point: "Lowell High School must be renamed because the namesake was a racist."

Notes: "Yeeeah, no, it wasn't named after that guy at all."

(they voted to rename anyway)

Another example: "Paul Revere led the Penobscot Expedition, which led to the colonization of the Penobscot."

Notes: "What? No. The Penobscot expedition was fought against the British, in Penobscot Bay. The natives weren't involved."

(voted to rename anyway)

"Dianne Feinstein was responsible for evicting an entire Filipino neighborhood!"

Notes: "That happened in 1977. She wasn't mayor until a year later."

(voted to rename anyway)

"Abraham Lincoln executed 38 Dakota Indians!"

Notes: "The Minnesota governor was going to execute *300*. Lincoln intervened when he had no obligation to, and saved the vast majority of them."

(voted to rename anyway)