1. I believe the government is about to make another huge mistake. Where is @UKLabour in all this? I have some questions @Keir_Starmer should be asking urgently. Please RT to raise awareness.
It seems increasingly likely that, come March, the govt is planning to say to under-65s without pre-existing conditions: go forth and get Covid https://t.co/BhHNG3M2DR
— D_Shariatmadari (@D_Shariatmadari) January 10, 2021
3. And Chris Whitty shared his thoughts on why, how and when restrictions might be lifted. pic.twitter.com/YtERJzhavU
— Adam Hamdy (@adamhamdy) January 5, 2021
It was wrong to believe that 'saving the economy' was an alternative to 'saving people's lives\u2019.
— Max Roser (@MaxCRoser) January 8, 2021
If anything it is the other way around and the two goals go together so that countries that kept the health impact of the pandemic lower suffered smaller economic consequences. pic.twitter.com/IbMsJPChnD
More from Adam Hamdy
1. The problem facing Europe & the US isn't a scientific one. Scientists have been clear for months: public health and economic & social wellbeing are best served by policies that supress the virus. The #JohnSnowMemo cites evidence that makes this
2. Some media commentators seek to present the issue of how to respond to the virus in simplistic terms: Lockdown vs Herd Immunity. This a mischaracterisation. The countries that have tackled #COVID-19 best have used a range of public health
3. Almost every scientist acknowledges lockdown equals failure. It is a sign governments have failed to implement the measures needed to allow life to be lived more or less as normal, without risking exponential growth in transmission.
4. There is an active misinformation campaign that is being aided and abetted by certain sections of the media and some politicians. The campaign would have us believe that if we open up and shield the vulnerable, all will be well. This approach has been derided as inhumane...
5. ...by the WHO, and ridiculous by Dr Fauci for many reasons. It is based on faulty logic, and the proponents of this approach have submitted no evidence that it can be achieved nor any practical examples of how they would do so.
2. Some media commentators seek to present the issue of how to respond to the virus in simplistic terms: Lockdown vs Herd Immunity. This a mischaracterisation. The countries that have tackled #COVID-19 best have used a range of public health
The Swiss Cheese model of #COVID19 defence, by @MackayIM.
— Dr Zo\xeb Hyde (@DrZoeHyde) October 24, 2020
No single measure is sufficient, but put together they can stop the virus.
I particularly like Misinformation Mouse, nibbling away at one of the slices. pic.twitter.com/c1gfTai2Hj
3. Almost every scientist acknowledges lockdown equals failure. It is a sign governments have failed to implement the measures needed to allow life to be lived more or less as normal, without risking exponential growth in transmission.
4. There is an active misinformation campaign that is being aided and abetted by certain sections of the media and some politicians. The campaign would have us believe that if we open up and shield the vulnerable, all will be well. This approach has been derided as inhumane...
5. ...by the WHO, and ridiculous by Dr Fauci for many reasons. It is based on faulty logic, and the proponents of this approach have submitted no evidence that it can be achieved nor any practical examples of how they would do so.
1. This thread has been given a new lease of life today. People keep saying, "We can't do #ZeroCovid, it doesn't fit with our way of life."
Look around.
What way of life?
The one we used to have?
The UK has been under varying degrees of restriction since March 23rd 2020.
2. Nearly a year of having our social and economic freedoms curtailed in one way or another. Nearly a year of muted economic activity. Nearly a year of mass death and disease.
#ZeroCovid doesn't fit with a way of life that doesn't exist anymore.
3. The question isn't whether it fits with our old freewheeling ways, but whether it would lead to better outcomes than the UK's current (poorly defined) strategy? Experiences in New Zealand, Australia, Vietnam, China, Taiwan and elsewhere very much suggest it would.
4. #ZeroCovid isn't about what's possible. It's about what's necessary. Decide what's necessary and figure out a way to make it possible. We can't force travellers to quarantine in hotels for two weeks? Why not? Taiwan does. And if that's what's necessary, why aren't we doing it?
5. I've heard some odd things said about #ZeroCovid
Simple-minded clod Matt Hancock said Zero Covid is impossible because no country has had zero cases.
Zero Covid sets out an ambition. It signals a country treats any infections as serious
Look around.
What way of life?
The one we used to have?
The UK has been under varying degrees of restriction since March 23rd 2020.
1. \u201c#ZeroCovid is impossible\u201d
— Adam Hamdy (@adamhamdy) January 4, 2021
I\u2019ve been arguing for #ZeroCovid before it even had a name, so I\u2019ve heard most of the counter arguments.
It\u2019s too expensive.
If countries like Vietnam can afford it, why can\u2019t we?https://t.co/1XUyzOuHtc
2. Nearly a year of having our social and economic freedoms curtailed in one way or another. Nearly a year of muted economic activity. Nearly a year of mass death and disease.
#ZeroCovid doesn't fit with a way of life that doesn't exist anymore.
3. The question isn't whether it fits with our old freewheeling ways, but whether it would lead to better outcomes than the UK's current (poorly defined) strategy? Experiences in New Zealand, Australia, Vietnam, China, Taiwan and elsewhere very much suggest it would.
4. #ZeroCovid isn't about what's possible. It's about what's necessary. Decide what's necessary and figure out a way to make it possible. We can't force travellers to quarantine in hotels for two weeks? Why not? Taiwan does. And if that's what's necessary, why aren't we doing it?
5. I've heard some odd things said about #ZeroCovid
Simple-minded clod Matt Hancock said Zero Covid is impossible because no country has had zero cases.
Zero Covid sets out an ambition. It signals a country treats any infections as serious
1. I find it remarkable that some medics and scientists aren’t raising their voices to make children as safe as possible. The comment about children being less infectious than adults is unsupported by evidence.
2. @c_drosten has talked about this extensively and @dgurdasani1 and @DrZoeHyde have repeatedly pointed out flaws in the studies which have purported to show this. Now for the other assertion: children are very rarely ill with COVID19.
3. Children seem to suffer less with acute illness, but we have no idea of the long-term impact of infection. We do know #LongCovid affects some children. @LongCovidKids now speaks for 1,500 children struggling with a wide range of long-term symptoms.
4. 1,500 children whose parents found a small campaign group. How many more are out there? We don’t know. ONS data suggests there might be many, but the issue hasn’t been studied sufficiently well or long enough for a definitive answer.
5. Some people have talked about #COVID19 being this generation’s Polio. According to US CDC, Polio resulted in inapparent infection in more than 99% of people. Severe disease occurred in a tiny fraction of those infected. Source:
I find it remarkable that a section of society not rejoicing that children very rarely ill with COVID compared to other viruses and much less infectious than adults
— Michael Absoud \U0001f499 (@MAbsoud) February 12, 2021
Instead trying prove the opposite!
Why??
2. @c_drosten has talked about this extensively and @dgurdasani1 and @DrZoeHyde have repeatedly pointed out flaws in the studies which have purported to show this. Now for the other assertion: children are very rarely ill with COVID19.
3. Children seem to suffer less with acute illness, but we have no idea of the long-term impact of infection. We do know #LongCovid affects some children. @LongCovidKids now speaks for 1,500 children struggling with a wide range of long-term symptoms.
4. 1,500 children whose parents found a small campaign group. How many more are out there? We don’t know. ONS data suggests there might be many, but the issue hasn’t been studied sufficiently well or long enough for a definitive answer.
5. Some people have talked about #COVID19 being this generation’s Polio. According to US CDC, Polio resulted in inapparent infection in more than 99% of people. Severe disease occurred in a tiny fraction of those infected. Source:
More from Government
Remember the government wanting to "follow the science"? It is remarkable how far it is ignoring scientific advice on this new ultra-infectious variant of #Covid-19 by keeping schools open... both SAGE and @imperialcollege issuing warnings on school closures. Stay with me. /1
First the @imperialcollege paper, which finds that the new variant is still being ultra-infectious despite November lockdowns - link here, but cases of new variant trebled in SEast, even under lockdown /2
https://t.co/fdvuVX3OkW
The paper then notes (given schools were open and under 20s are most infected): "A particular concern is whether it will be possible to maintain control over transmission while allowing schools to reopen in January 2021." /3
This echoes what govt science advisory SAGE cmme told ministers on Dec 22...that it was "highly unlikely" the R number can be kept below 1 (cases falling, it is currently 1.1-1.3) with schools open /4
https://t.co/yV5qcSkErJ
But on Dec 30 Gavin Williamson announce primaries would go back, and secondary schools would have staggered return while testing regime (lateral flow, not that sensitive) was set up - see statement here
First the @imperialcollege paper, which finds that the new variant is still being ultra-infectious despite November lockdowns - link here, but cases of new variant trebled in SEast, even under lockdown /2
https://t.co/fdvuVX3OkW
The paper then notes (given schools were open and under 20s are most infected): "A particular concern is whether it will be possible to maintain control over transmission while allowing schools to reopen in January 2021." /3
This echoes what govt science advisory SAGE cmme told ministers on Dec 22...that it was "highly unlikely" the R number can be kept below 1 (cases falling, it is currently 1.1-1.3) with schools open /4
https://t.co/yV5qcSkErJ
But on Dec 30 Gavin Williamson announce primaries would go back, and secondary schools would have staggered return while testing regime (lateral flow, not that sensitive) was set up - see statement here
The Government is making the same mistakes as it did in the first wave. Except with knowledge.
A thread.
The Government's strategy at the beginning of the pandemic was to 'cocoon' the vulnerable (e.g. those in care homes). This was a 'herd immunity' strategy. This interview is from
This strategy failed. It is impossible to 'cocoon' the vulnerable, as Covid is passed from younger people to older, more vulnerable people.
We can see this playing out through heatmaps. e.g. these heatmaps from the second
The Government then decided to change its strategy to 'preventing a second wave that overwhelms the NHS'. This was announced on 8 June in Parliament.
This is not the same as 'preventing a second wave'.
https://t.co/DPWiJbCKRm
The Academy of Medical Scientists published a report on 14 July 'Preparing for a Challenging Winter' commissioned by the Chief Scientific Adviser that set out what needed to be done in order to prevent a catastrophe over the winter
A thread.
The Government's strategy at the beginning of the pandemic was to 'cocoon' the vulnerable (e.g. those in care homes). This was a 'herd immunity' strategy. This interview is from
Government #coronavirus science advisor Dr David Halpern tells me of plans to \u2018cocoon\u2019 vulnerable groups. pic.twitter.com/dhECJNbmnI
— Mark Easton (@BBCMarkEaston) March 11, 2020
This strategy failed. It is impossible to 'cocoon' the vulnerable, as Covid is passed from younger people to older, more vulnerable people.
We can see this playing out through heatmaps. e.g. these heatmaps from the second
Here are the heatmaps for Covid detected cases, positivity, hospitalizations, and ICU admissions. This is for the week to 3 January 2021.
— Dr Duncan Robertson (@Dr_D_Robertson) January 7, 2021
I have marked a line on 21 September, when SAGE recommended a circuit breaker, so you can see how the situation has deteriorated since then. pic.twitter.com/SEEVgUVK4j
The Government then decided to change its strategy to 'preventing a second wave that overwhelms the NHS'. This was announced on 8 June in Parliament.
This is not the same as 'preventing a second wave'.
https://t.co/DPWiJbCKRm
The Academy of Medical Scientists published a report on 14 July 'Preparing for a Challenging Winter' commissioned by the Chief Scientific Adviser that set out what needed to be done in order to prevent a catastrophe over the winter
One thing civil servants learn is to write things down. Here is @acadmedsci's 14 July report commissioned by @uksciencechief. For the record.
— Dr Duncan Robertson (@Dr_D_Robertson) September 17, 2020
If you're curious what Trump's defense will look like, all you have to do is turn on Fox News. My latest at @mmfa
The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.
And in fact, this predates Trump.
In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop
That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the
In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.
The tl;dr is that for years right-wing media have been excusing Trump's violent rhetoric by going, "Yes, but THE DEMOCRATS..." and then bending themselves into knots to pretend that Dems were calling for violence when they very, very clearly weren't.
And in fact, this predates Trump.
In 2008, Obama was talking about not backing down in the face of an ugly campaign. He said "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun."
https://t.co/i5YaQJsKop
That quote was from the movie The Untouchables. And there's no way anybody reading that quote in good faith could conclude that he was talking about actual guns and knives. But it became a big talking point on the
In 2018, Obama-era Attorney General Eric Holder was speaking to a group of Georgia Democrats about GOP voter suppression. He riffed on Michelle Obama's "When they go low, we go high" line from the 2016 DNC.
You May Also Like
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?