If Republican leaders are actually interested in "unity" rather than using its rhetoric to avoid accountability, here's something they could do. It doesn't involve much in the way of consequences, but it does feature truth-telling, apologies and requests for reconciliation.

Riley J. Williams is charged in the Capitol riot.
She allegedly stole a computer from @SpeakerPelosi’s office, & now @FBI is investigating a tip that she intended to send the computer to a friend in Russia who’d sell it to Russian intelligence.
Williams appears to have “fled”.

From the affidavit against her: Riley Williams’ former romantic partner called the FBI several times in the days following the riots to report that they had seen her in videos inside the Capitol, but friends of Williams had shown the tipster a video of Williams taking a laptop...

... computer or hard drive from Speaker Pelosi’s office. The witness told the FBI that “WILLIAMS intended to send the computer device to a friend in Russia, who then planned to sell the device to SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service...”

“... but that the transfer of the computer device to Russia fell through for unknown reasons and Williams still has the computer device or destroyed it. “This matter remains under investigation.”

Williams has appeared to have fled, she packed a bag & did not tell her mother where she was going but said she would be gone for a couple of weeks. She has changed her telephone number & deleted what are believed to have been her social media accounts on Facebook, Instagram...

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.

Most recent T&T data now out, covers 4th - 10th Feb

LFD use continues to rise but more slowly than last week and T&T performance remains consistent.

And as ever we don't know about who isn't tested and who struggles to isolate.

🧵

https://t.co/lffa72M9YJ

The number of people being tested each week remains high at around 3m, but this is due to increasing use of rapid lateral flow devices as PCR test use falls.

The number of LFDs used has increased five-fold since the start of Jan, and 35% in the past two weeks (although noticeable slowdown this most recent week).

By contrast, PCR test use for people with symptoms fallen week on week for the past month (PHE positivity data due later).

LFDs are generally used by people without symptoms to find cases that might otherwise unknowingly transmit disease. Current use focuses in places like schools, health and care, some workplaces, and community testing sites run by local gov for people who can't work from home.

There's definite variation in their use across the country (but note chart isn't pop adjusted) and as mentioned last week, will need to keep close eye on how use varies, particularly among more vulnerable and deprived groups.

Need to mitigate any unintended harm, esp around jobs