Read on Twitter
Hi @MarkDrakeford and @vaughangething I might be stupid but:-
1. Contrary to what was reported, incidence in 30& #39;s, 40& #39;s and 50& #39;s has fallen in the last week https://twitter.com/vaughangething/status/1318211526159990804">https://twitter.com/vaughange...
1. Contrary to what was reported, incidence in 30& #39;s, 40& #39;s and 50& #39;s has fallen in the last week https://twitter.com/vaughangething/status/1318211526159990804">https://twitter.com/vaughange...
2. Why has this 
https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten" aria-label="Emoji: Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten"> graph stopped at wk 41 (11/10) and not included wk 42? And why focus on the >60s? The all-age readings for those weeks were 143 & 94 respectively. The heat map in (1) shows an improvement in 2 of 4 cohorts above age 60 in these weeks also. This is a deception
graph stopped at wk 41 (11/10) and not included wk 42? And why focus on the >60s? The all-age readings for those weeks were 143 & 94 respectively. The heat map in (1) shows an improvement in 2 of 4 cohorts above age 60 in these weeks also. This is a deception" title="2. Why has this https://abs.twimg.com/emoji/v2/... draggable="false" alt="👇" title="Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten" aria-label="Emoji: Rückhand Zeigefinger nach unten"> graph stopped at wk 41 (11/10) and not included wk 42? And why focus on the >60s? The all-age readings for those weeks were 143 & 94 respectively. The heat map in (1) shows an improvement in 2 of 4 cohorts above age 60 in these weeks also. This is a deception" class="img-responsive" style="max-width:100%;"/>
3. The paper estimates 2,544 infections ^per day ^ whereas @ons last week estimated 7,900 in total.These numbers are at odds with each other. Have the TAG assumptions been peer reviewed or tested by the ONS?
4. The paper uses Hospital Admissions as a determinant of risk, when it& #39;s been pointed out by @carlheneghan & @MichaelYeadon3 the measures are redundant, as @PublicHealthW doesn& #39;t "backstack" suspected cases once diagnosis are in place (suspected cases stay on the record)
5a. The paper refers to a "Reasonable Worst Case Scenario" of 18,200 admissions and 6,300 deaths. Have the assumptions been peer reviewed & tested by @ons? Since the paper is dated 9th September, and references a forecast from 1st July, have Ministers reviewed the ...
5b. assumptions, given that case numbers (measured by sample date) reported by @PublicHealthW are now flattening off?
6a. Since 1st September, 115 deaths reported by @PublicHealthW from 3,181 hospital admissions (including suspected admissions plus 7 day lag) - a fatality rate of 3.6%. Even allowing for an adjustment to exclude suspected case admissions (fatality rate = 10.84%) this is ....
6b. ... much lower than assumed in the paper (35% fatality rate). The paper reports that it has been agreed to be used by Ministers. Have Ministers reviewed these assumptions in light of lower fatalitu rate, and slower case and ICU growth versus Wave 1?
7. The worst case scenario paper refers to trailing actions (below). Have these been completed, and the findings reviewed, peer reviewed and tested by @ons?
Your Circuit Breaker paper was published on 10th July (att #1). None of the measures outlined (att #2) in the TAG paper were included. When were these agreed and where is the scientific advice to support these benchmarks?
The TAG paper reports that critical care inpatients (including non Covid patients) have breached 150 since 30th September. @PublicHealthW have reported weekly that critical care inpatients have been 129, 139 and 132 for the 3 weeks from w/ended 27/9 onwards
I& #39;ll continue tomorrow
