Scrutable

bob sterman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 23, 2020 6:46 pm

I knew the lateral flow tests weren't good but is this for real?

Analysis of lateral flow test programme at University of Birmingham showed "SENSITIVITY 3% (not a typo)"...

https://twitter.com/deeksj/status/1340975390412685312

Surely this terrible performance must be mostly down to the self-swabbing? Even though they did a good enough job for the purposes of PCR.

The only missed samples were all very LOW PCR RNA - EXACTLY as expected.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 23, 2020 10:49 pm

https://twitter.com/michaelmina_lab/sta ... 0095074308

The only missed samples were all very LOW PCR RNA - EXACTLY as expected.

JellyandJackson wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:50 am

The county council is now suggesting getting a postal test for healthy / asymptomatic secondary school age kids 4-7 days before they go back. So that’ll be interesting.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 24, 2020 4:49 pm

JellyandJackson wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 24, 2020 9:50 am

The county council is now suggesting getting a postal test for healthy / asymptomatic secondary school age kids 4-7 days before they go back. So that’ll be interesting.

Nationwide that would be of the order of, what, 3 million children? With the UK currently doing about 400,000 tests per day? Out of a capacity of 700,000? With my reputation?

[*]There is a general consensus that the decision to close schools to control the COVID-19 pandemic should be used as a last resort. The negative physical, mental health and educational impact of proactive school closures on children, as well as the economic impact on society more broadly, would likely outweigh the benefits.

[*]In surveillance data, among childhood COVID-19 cases, children between 1-18 years of age have lower rates of hospitalisation, severe hospitalisation and death than do all other age groups.
[*]Children of all ages are susceptible to and can transmit SARS-CoV-2. Younger children appear to be less susceptible to infection, and when infected, less often lead to onward transmission than older children and adults.

[*]This report does not consider the epidemiology of COVID-19 in relation to new variants of SARS-CoV-2, for which robust evidence on the potential impact in school settings is not yet available, such as one recently observed in the United Kingdom.
[*]School closures can contribute to a reduction in SARS-CoV-2 transmission, but by themselves are insufficient to prevent community transmission of COVID-19 in the absence of other non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) such as restrictions on mass gathering.

[*]The return to school of children around mid-August 2020 coincided with a general relaxation of other NPI measures in many countries and does not appear to have been a driving force in the upsurge in cases observed in many EU Member States from October 2020. Trends in case notification rates observed since August 2020 for children aged 16-18 years most closely resemble those of adults aged 19-39 years.

[*]Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 can occur within school settings and clusters have been reported in preschools, primary and secondary schools. Incidence of COVID-19 in school settings appear to be impacted by levels of community transmission. Where epidemiological investigation has occurred, transmission in schools has accounted for a minority of all COVID-19 cases in each country.
[*]Educational staff and adults within the school setting are generally not seen to be at a higher risk of infection than other occupations, although educational roles that put one in contact with older children and/or many adults may be associated with a higher risk.
[*]Non-pharmaceutical interventions in school settings in the form of physical distancing that prevent crowding as well as hygiene and safety measures are essential to preventing transmission. Measures must be adapted to the setting and age group and consider the need to prevent transmission as well as to provide children with an optimal learning and social environment.

Grumble wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 5:39 pm

Why don’t they link it to the tiers?

Sciolus wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 5:57 pm

Grumble wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 5:39 pm

Why don’t they link it to the tiers?

Probably because they are determined to press ahead with end-of-year exams until the moment it becomes impossible, and have refused to come up with a system to account for individuals' differing amounts of access to schooling. So making it national preserves the fiction of fairness.

The message is schools are safe. The problem is not the schools. Teachers, school authorities, parents they’ve made a fantastic effort to make schools safe places. The issue is the what happens, the spread from erm the mixing of households that naturally takes place in schools. That’s what we’re trying to combat in the very high infection rate areas. So my message would be unless your area is specifically among those very high rate areas, send your children, send your family to school in the normal way.

OffTheRock wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:21 pm

Unless you are in primary. Even in most tier 4 areas looks like they are going back on Monday.

Ladysavage wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:50 pm

OffTheRock wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 4:21 pm

Unless you are in primary. Even in most tier 4 areas looks like they are going back on Monday.

Ours aren't physically back until the 18th as it stands, that may change as our figures up here are pretty shite. I'm having to homeschool boobshark from the 11th

OffTheRock wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:04 pm

I think because they’ve shoved almost everywhere into tier 4. So if they closed all primaries in tier 4 it would be too many schools. They’re going with the worst hit areas in tier 4 for primary. Presumably with the least worst hit areas closing their schools in about 2 weeks when their cases are still rising.

badger wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:48 pm

OffTheRock wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:04 pm

I think because they’ve shoved almost everywhere into tier 4. So if they closed all primaries in tier 4 it would be too many schools. They’re going with the worst hit areas in tier 4 for primary. Presumably with the least worst hit areas closing their schools in about 2 weeks when their cases are still rising.

Are they? What is "worst hit"? Because it's not number of of infections or percentage increase over last week. Some boroughs in London seemingly worse hit are opening primaries than those which are staying closed.

What data are they using to make these decisions? Is it infections by age? Are they really that different enough in the circumstances to warrant this patchwork approach? It seems they are doing it to a) f.ck everyone off and b) have another u turn to make in a few days.

OffTheRock wrote: ↑

Thu Dec 31, 2020 4:46 pm

badger wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 11:48 pm

OffTheRock wrote: ↑

Wed Dec 30, 2020 6:04 pm

I think because they’ve shoved almost everywhere into tier 4. So if they closed all primaries in tier 4 it would be too many schools. They’re going with the worst hit areas in tier 4 for primary. Presumably with the least worst hit areas closing their schools in about 2 weeks when their cases are still rising.

Are they? What is "worst hit"? Because it's not number of of infections or percentage increase over last week. Some boroughs in London seemingly worse hit are opening primaries than those which are staying closed.

What data are they using to make these decisions? Is it infections by age? Are they really that different enough in the circumstances to warrant this patchwork approach? It seems they are doing it to a) f.ck everyone off and b) have another u turn to make in a few days.

Yep. I’m going take that back and say I have no f.cking idea how they picked them. But it doesn’t look like they do either.

They seem to have forgotten that middle schools exist and that there aren’t rigid catchment boundaries in England. Are schools supposed to stay open based on where they are located or where most of their pupils come from?