26/42 Are there any national datasets that accurately capture what is going on? The brilliant @jburnmurdoch has highlighted number of admissions into ICU. The message from his animated chart (click on link) couldn’t be clearer – this winter is v unusual: https://t.co/76ZvHU2pmV.

27/42 Some sceptics arguing covid-19 tests are inaccurate. PCR tests not 100% accurate but hospital inpatient testing accuracy much increased by frequency of testing (typically admission, days 3 & 6/7, then weekly). This means very low numbers of overall false positives.
28/42 Some sceptics argue that the published covid-19 positive inpatient numbers include both those admitted with covid-19 and those who acquired covid-19 in hospital. And that there are significant numbers of patients who have acquired covid-19 in hospital.
29/42 Covid-19 positive test data has always included anyone testing positive, irrespective of initial diagnosis. And the NHS has always acknowledged that hospital acquired (nosocomial) infection is a big issue. Hospitals are working incredibly hard to control it….
30/42 …The NHS regularly and completely transparently publishes nosocomial infection data, by hospital. But neither issue affects the degree of pressure that hospitals are under. Every inpatient, irrespective of initial diagnosis/infection source, occupies a hospital bed.
31/42 Some sceptics using regular @ONS & @PHE_uk mortality data to argue that current death rates are just reflecting ordinary mortality rates for this time of year. Or that the covid-19 mortality definition and diagnoses are mixing up ordinary respiratory illness and covid-19.
32/42 This excellent thread https://t.co/J3CMsFVogj looks at these issues in detail. It shows clearly why it is too early for the current sets of this data to be showing increased levels of mortality from the current, new variant driven, surge of covid-19 infection.
33/42 In the words of this thread: “If you are using the ONS + PHE data to assess excess deaths that are happening *now* you are using the wrong data because of lags. The impact of this surge will only become apparent in future data from the ONS + PHE”.
34/42 The current covid-19 death definition widely accepted across medical profession. Doctors are required by law to complete death certificate to the best of their knowledge and ability. Covid deaths are running at an alarming rate – currently over 1,000 a day.
35/42 Some sceptics are arguing that the failure to use Nightingales before now indicates that the NHS isn’t that busy. They are not purpose built hospitals and would require staff to be transferred from other settings. Systematic use was always a last resort insurance policy…
36/42 …The NHS was always going to use every ounce of permanent purpose built capacity first. The fact that the London Nightingale is opening next week is a sign of how pressured the NHS in London has become. Other Nightingales – e.g. Exeter and Manchester – already in use.
37/42 Particularly loathsome are the videos of empty corridors and hospital areas. There are lots of good reasons why some areas of hospitals will be much quieter than usual. No visitors due to infection control. Outpatient clinics moved online. Films being done at night-time…
38/42 …Waiting areas not in use due to social distancing. Reduced levels of ordinary planned surgery. Most activity and staff in hospitals will currently will be concentrated on covid, intensive care and emergency areas. Areas where illegal filmers can’t film.
39/42 And, as this thread from @dpjhodges - https://t.co/nP5ZkQ87Fu - argues. If the sceptics are right, those charged with nation’s health – CMO, CSA, Ministers, officials, NHS leaders – all have to be unaware of the data problems sceptics have "identified"...
40/42 …And despite their decades of cumulative experience, they are making major public health decisions totally oblivious to the catastrophic misreading of the data that the amateur lock-down sceptic sleuths have uncovered…
41/42 ...or they are unaware of these catastrophic misreadings. And, for reasons no one has yet rationally explained, they are all carrying on regardless, day after day, month after month, perpetuating one of the greatest public health hoaxes in history.
42/42 Worth adding that the more evidence & data driven sceptics now abandoning sceptical camp: https://t.co/CURsykctdu. Still time for rest to follow! Particularly since everyone in NHS from frontline staff and trust leaders to @NHSEngland CEO is heartily fed up of this cr*p.

More from Health

this simple, counter narrative fact keeps cropping up all over the world.

hospital and ICU utilization has been and remains low this year.

it's terribly curious that so few of these monitoring tools provide historical baselines.

getting them is like pulling teeth.


we might think of this as an oversight until you see stuff like this:

this woman was arrested for filming and sharing the fact that their are empty hospitals in the UK.

that's full blown soviet. what possible honest purpose does that

this is the action of a police state and a propaganda ministry, not a well intentioned government and a public heath agency.

"we cannot let people see the truth for fear they might base their actions on real facts" is not much of a mantra for just governance.


90% full ICU sounds scary until you realize that 90-100% full is normal in flu season.

staffed ICU beds are expensive to leave empty. it's like flying with 15% of the plane empty. hospitals don't do that.

and all US hospitals are mandated to be able to flex to 120% ICU.

the US is currently at historically low ICU utilization for this time of year.

61% is "you're all going to go out of business" territory as is 66% full hospital use.

can you blame them for mining CARES act money? they'll die without it.
Let's talk honestly about "informed consent."
Someone with decades of training gives someone with none advice usually packed into 1-3 mins. Huge amount is based on trust. Huge potential for bias built in. But also there is no obligation to provide real alternative options.


I am classified as 'gifted' (obnoxious and ableist term). I mention because of what I am about to say. You all know that I was an ambulatory wheelchair user previously - could stand - but contractures have ended that. When I pleaded for physio, turned down. But did you know...

I recently was chatting with a doctor I know and explaining what happened and the day the physiatrist told me it was too late and nothing could be done. The doctor asked if I'd like one of her friends/colleagues to give second opinion. I said yes please! So...

She said can you send me MRI and other imaging they did to determine it wasn't possible to address your contractures.

Me: What?
Dr.: They did a MRI first before deciding right?
Me: No
Dr: What did they do??!
Me: Examined me for 2 minutes.
Dr: I am very angry rn. Can't talk.

My point is you don't even know if you are making "informed" decisions because the only source of information you have is the person who has already decided what they think you should do. And may I remind you of a word called 'compliance.'

You May Also Like

Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇

It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details):
https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha

I've read it so you needn't!

Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.

The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.

Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.