UK variant update:

50% more contagious and the main difference is in the rate of infection in children up to the age of 9.

No significant difference found yet in clinical course, mortality within 28 days or chance of re-infection.

1/

https://t.co/D8DXVvBeew

50% higher infection rate

(Secondary attack rate 15.1% versus 9.8%)

2/
Main effect in children under 9 years old

(see age distributions, second image has overlay of reference onto UK variant)

3/
Essential to stop the UK variant: 50% higher transmission will lead to more cases, more hospitalizations, more ICU cases, more deaths, and greater economic costs.
Independent SAGE's plan for the UK variant

With the new Covid variant everywhere, it's not enough to just wait for the vaccine | Stephen Reicher

5/

https://t.co/cF1HPC3U2l
1)Accelerate vaccinations
2)Control: a) Advance application for travel to and from the UK, a negative PCR test prior to travel, managed isolation on arrival b) Schools should remain closed until buildings are made as safe as possible for pupils and staff
c)Universities online

6/
3) test,trace,isolate: a)Test, b)Trace contacts as quickly as possible, isolate before they can infect others. Include forward tracing (identifying who you might have infected) and backwards tracing (who infected you), c)Practical support to isolate

7/
4) Provide guidance for workplace safety.
5) Provide financial support for the public.

8/
Compare
👉higher fatality, with
👉increase in transmissibility ON fatality.

Example:
50% higher fatality increases deaths from 129 to 193.
50% higher transmissibility increases from 129 to 978 after one month, more if longer

See:
https://t.co/MYiQUL804z

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.

You May Also Like