I came across this tweet from "Caroline Mansfield" about my local hospital being "empty".

So let's take a look:

First up, some warning signs:
1) A generic username, and another real Twitter account (I've emailed)
2) No registration with GCRN
3) Only recently joined Twitter

On to the Issues.

Issue No. 1: Barnet Hospital isn't actually IN Hertfordshire. It's in Barnet, with an Enfield postcode.

Which is confusing, but wouldn't be counted in Hertfordshire's hospital admission data.
Issue No. 2

Barnet is actually VERY busy with COVID cases, with 22% of our ENTIRE pandemic caseload in the LAST 7 DAYS ALONE

Source: https://t.co/IECfMo8FAK
Issue No. 3:

Barnet Hospital is seeing incredible pressures, the trust (The Royal Free Trust) has cancelled most non-urgent and routine work,

and as of 23rd Dec had admitted 244 patients with COVID, roughly half the peak of March, and climbing v. fast.
Issue No. 4
Even busier is Intensive Care - the whole trust only has 57 beds (23 - Barnet & 34 at the Royal Free Hospital).

As of 23rd Dec, 40 of them were occupied by COVID patients. That's 70% of the ENTIRE CAPACITY used up by COVID ALONE.

Source: https://t.co/zGmMSuoywN
Why is this a problem?

For every COVID patient in an ICU bed, another patient isn't - ICU takes routine complex operations, unwell ward patients, other emergencies and even transfers from other hospitals.

We can cancel operations, but can't stop the other unexpected patients.
And if you need ICU but do not get ICU, unfortunately you will most likely die.

This is why the mortality for COVID shoots up when resources locally are exceeded. Like in Lombardy in the Spring.
Lastly, the ambulance service is the busiest it's EVER been in London, with more calls than the first wave in the past few weeks.

And if they are eating sandwiches in their cab, that's their break. In their vehicle. Think about that a little bit more.
This kind of COVID denialism is not just Internet rubbish, it's dangerous and real and led us in part to the disaster we are in right now.

Do not RT, even to trash it. Block, report and move on.

And as ever, hands, face, space, fresh air and please, stay at home. /end

More from Health

Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.


More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.

The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."

So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?

I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.
I applaud the #EUCancerPlan *BUT* caution: putting #meat 🥩 (a nourishing, evolutionary food) in the same box as 🚬 to solve a contemporary health challenge, would be basing policy on assumptions rather than robust data.

#FollowTheScience yes, but not just part of it!
THREAD👇


1/ Granted, some studies have pointed to ASSOCIATIONS of HIGH intake of red & processed meats with (slightly!) increased colorectal cancer incidence. Also, @WHO/IARC is often mentioned in support (usually hyperbolically so).

But, let’s have a closer look at all this! 🔍


2/ First, meat being “associated” with cancer is very different from stating that meat CAUSES cancer.

Unwarranted use of causal language is widespread in nutritional sciences, posing a systemic problem & undermining credibility.

3/ That’s because observational data are CONFOUNDED (even after statistical adjustment).

Healthy user bias is a major problem. Healthy middle classes are TOLD to eat less red meat (due to historical rather than rational reasons, cf link). So, they

4/ What’s captured here is sociology, not physiology.

Health-focused Westerners eat less red meat, whereas those who don’t adhere to dietary advice tend to have unhealthier lifestyles.

That tells us very little about meat AS SUCH being responsible for disease.

You May Also Like