Forum menu
That was a harsh bit of selective quoting and replying
Yes a bit, apologies. Your last point is bang on. My concern is really the edge cases, where someone is vulnerable, and at home with others who are not. I can't see any simple solutions here.
I would be amazed if it was that low. This is a very contagious virus and people were generally acting with abandon until the lockdown started.
The best early seroprevalence data was from screening anonymous blood donations in the Netherlands, and gave value of < 3%, which corroborated with a healthcare worker screening of about 6% infected, mostly from non-hospital contacts. Subsequent mass studies have shown levels of <10% in areas outside of mass transmission.
Kerley there is a very big population of susceptible, so yes it is contagious (not as bad as measles), but we have effectively halted that in its steps. Before mass infection.
or around 10% have had it. Which do you think it is?
The latter 3-10% infected, 2-6M infections - mortality of order 0.1%, but vastly higher in the very elderly.
Here are the numbers:
(Week 18) Excess deaths = 52,000
(Week 18) Excess deaths in >65 = 48,000
(Week 18) Excess deaths in <65 = 4,000 (yes that low)
Ratio of fatality rates is 12x (yes that big)
Proportion of population >65 = 18.4% (2018)
Now assume infections are uniform in the population, but deaths are not, and PREV have been infected:
52,000 = 66,000,000 x PREV x IFR x ((1-0.184) + 0.184 x 12)
52,000 = 66,000,000 x PREV x IFR x 3.024
PREV = 0.03, IFR = 0.008 or 0.8%
PREV = 0.1, IFR = 0.002 or 0.2%
PREV = 0.4 (one can dream), IFR = 0.07%
Hence the IFR is somewhere between 0.2-0.8%
NOTE: this assumes all excess are COVID19 deaths, it is possible that there is an excess due to poor access to healthcare for heart attacks and strokes, also suicides, but there is also a reduction in other reasons such as road accidents and violent crime. Cancer is unlikely to show a contribution over such a short timeframe.
EDIT PREV is prevalence(%)/100 so a proportion, as is IFR.
Meaning actual mortality of order 1%, if you count the bodies, or 0.1% if the elderly are not worth counting.
Hey, mortality is 0.0% if you don't die! Nothing to worry about!
What is PREV? Those numbers don't appear to make sense. If 10% infected, that's 6.7 million, 52k deaths is 0.8%.
Absolutely!
The scandal in the nursing homes is atrocious. A very early study in Australia gave an IFR of 20% or so. Protect the NHS but Social Care, you're on your own.
If any good comes of this, it should be an integration of health and social care.
There's a worrying trend on social media at the moment saying that we should stop criticising the Government, they're doing their best, we need to get behind them, the press should stop being so harsh on them blah blah.
Really worrying how many people seem to be posting these various memes and examples. Someone on a work video call earlier said it was a good job we didn't have this press during WW2 (this from a guy born in the 60's...)
Almost like these morons have voted for the Tories, have realised what a total mess they're making of everything and suddenly don't want to hear the bad news.
What is PREV? Those numbers don’t appear to make sense. If 10% infected, that’s 6.7 million, 52k deaths is 0.8%.
The calculation has to weight the fact that if you are elderly (18% of the population) you are 12x more likely to die than if you are young. If you know nothing about a case, it's 0.2%, if you are elderly it's 2.4%. The overall IFR is the weighted mean, and that would be 0.8%.
People are desperate to believe that the high number of deaths we have in the UK means that we’re on our way to some kind of herd immunity. We are not. It only takes very simple maths to explain why we are not… but as a nation, we don’t do even simple maths.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijcp.13528?af=R
Link above is to a study reported in the Guardian today suggesting that 29% of the infection may have been infected by the second week of April.
BTW, the real figure is worse than that for the elderly. Of the 52,000 excess deaths, 24,000 are in the >85yo, 15,000 are 75-84yo and 8,000 are in the 65-74 yo age group - due to the way the calculation is done (geometric mean) the sums won't add up exactly to 52.
I plan to standardize the age-specific excess deaths per 100k population, but have yet to do so. hey are truly terrible for the >85yo group.
Almost like these morons have voted for the Tories
weird how everyone who voted conservative is now a moron.. lol.
No, their moron status has been constant .
There’s a worrying trend on social media at the moment saying that we should stop criticising the Government, they’re doing their best, we need to get behind them, the press should stop being so harsh on them blah blah.
Politics aside, the pressure on Johnson as an individual must be huge, imagine taking the abuse & pressure he's getting right now, it'll be worse than that an STW thread!
imagine taking the abuse & pressure he’s getting right now,
The abuse and pressure is largely based on the job he has done. I wonder how much abuse the PM of, for example, New Zealand gets?
weird how everyone who voted conservative is now a moron.. lol.
They were morons then too...
^ this (I mean nickjb's comment)
"be nice to them, it's a difficult job"
It is. Very. Still doesn't excuse the incompetence and the lying.
The abuse and pressure is largely based on the job he has done. I wonder how much abuse the PM of, for example, New Zealand gets?
I know, I'm not arguing the toss. What I'm saying is, take a moment to think about that role on a humane perspective, or if its was you - I doubt its a pleasant place to be. Even if he were doing the job "more correctly" as many of us believe he could, his daily job is ultimately to turn up to an room and be critiqued and question by a person on the other side of the table, with the expectation to know every answer, fact and number, the goings on on every hot and not so hot topic etc. Its a mammoth job I wouldn't want.
No but Johnson did want the job and has made a massive mess of it. No sympathy from me and he's more than welcome to step down and let someone else take the abuse if it's too much for him.
The government are doing their best. That is undeniable.
What they should be doing is the best of someone who know what they are doing and aren't led by a racist, misogynistic, incompetent ****tard who is directed by a eugenicist.
The man represents a party and an ethos that does not particularly shout 'humane'. He knew what he was getting into, he saw the abuse that May earned, and still took the job.
You fly with the crows....
There’s a worrying trend on social media at the moment saying that we should stop criticising the Government, they’re doing their best, we need to get behind them, the press should stop being so harsh on them blah blah.
None of which originated from the propaganda department (which doesn't exist) social media bot farms (that the non-existent department don't fund).
People are desperate to believe that the high number of deaths we have in the UK means that we’re on our way to some kind of herd immunity.
I've been looking for clarification on the figures of near 1% infected 7 weeks ago, at a time the infection rate was doubling every 2-3 days, and the revised figures suggesting we're only at 5-10% now. Interesting that there is a study suggesting it could be 29% or more. It's not wishful thinking, it's trying to ascertain where we are at. I guess the new antibody test might nail this if we can get it out there soon in good volume.
Politics aside this lot are a complete shower of ba5tards who've got where they are by lying, cheating, and stabbing others in the back. Not just Johnson, but all those he surrounds himself with who are on the inside. Half-cock is a disingenuous liar and snivelling shit to boot, Patel is a bully and can't count up to twelfty, and that's just two of them for starters. Give me five minutes.... The material here would be comedy gold if the situation wasn't so bad and the consequences so serious.
Interesting that there is a study suggesting it could be 29% or more
It's based on an estimation of "R" which requires an estimate of generation time. That is the big problem with R. We can estimate rate of change of cases and deaths, but this has to be convolved with a poorly known duration to get R. The modelling groups, keen to get transmission concepts understood, have over-sold the utility of R (above 1 goes up, below 1 goes down), and now the public, and to some extent policy, is focused on this number. Other population surveys come nowhere near 29% in comparable populations.
This analysis factors in test uncertainty appropriately using Bayesian methods
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.03.20089201v1
The French figure of 6% infected at 11/5 hasn't been revised. Serological testing of a cluster in l'Oise gave 26% and almost everywhere else is likely to be lower. In SW France which has a very low level of infections local television said around 1% have been infected, 1.2% IIRC.
his daily job is ultimately to turn up to an room and be critiqued and question by a person on the other side of the table, with the expectation to know every answer, fact and number, the goings on on every hot and not so hot topic etc
No it isn't - that's a role he's created for himself.
Merkel for example doesn't need to do that, she sticks people who's job it is to ....
It’s based on an estimation of “R” which requires an estimate of generation time. That is the big problem with R. We can estimate rate of change of cases and deaths, but this has to be convolved with a poorly known duration to get R. The modelling groups, keen to get transmission concepts understood, have over-sold the utility of R (above 1 goes up, below 1 goes down), and now the public, and to some extent policy, is focused on this number.
It's rather simpler.... policy is simply leak something and see what the public think.
The biggest hole isn't the bayensian maths or even convolution ... it's public understanding the DURATION part and more subtly the effect of actions on the prediction.
I'm not really surprised TBH, senior managers and tech staff often seem to struggle here... or at least need to be frequently reminded/prompted (as well as the constraints on the model).
It’s rather simpler…. policy is simply leak something and see what the public think.
I can't disagree with that. Crowd-sourcing policy opinion, seems ridiculous to me. Also I've learned with experience that postponing a decision, even an incorrect one, is worse than taking a decision. At least you say you made a wrong choice and correct it.
Avoids all the tedious messing around with focus groups. Just fling it straight out and deny it if it fails. Seems like it might be a popular tactic with anybody who hates all that red tape stuff that government put in the way of people. Trouble is, I just can't think of anyone near the PM with that outlook on life...
On a positive note, have we done:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52656808
Roche antibody test.
mrmonkfinger
MemberNone of which originated from the propaganda department (which doesn’t exist) social media bot farms (that the non-existent department don’t fund).
Do you seriously not believe the Tory party runs bot farms?
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EXB_Am4WkAEbNn5?format=png&name=900x900
Interesting take on the risks of indoor environments with importance on time spent in them
https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them
Is that Boris pictured immediately before shaking hands with all the Coronavirus patients..?
Absolutely I don't.
I also am not here and nor are you and this thread is entirely imaginary.
Roche antibody test.
Automated ELISA test, much welcomed and approved by FDA and EMA. Presumably validated at Porton Down for the benefit of PHE derriere protection. But in truth, the other tests would have been fine for population surveys. As in the link I gave.
On a positive note, have we done:
> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-52656808 < Roche antibody test.
yeah about time!
apparently EU approved for use 10 days earlier though, so Im assuming we are back of the queue already
and as for botfarms are people naive enough to think this isnt part of political campaigning now?
the Tories dont even deny it https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2018/02/24/tories-hire-army-tweeters-take-social-media-fight-labour/
NW missed my sarcasm. Or maybe I was too subtle.
For those who are interested. This is the Roche automated platform
https://diagnostics.roche.com/us/en/products/systems/cobas_-8000-modular-analyzer-series.html#productInfo
What they have done is have the reagents approved to add automated SARS-COV-2 IgG/M detection from serum/plasma (so not blood). It's not one poor lab technician running a bespoke single test (Oxford). Throughput is up to 300 tests/hr and scalable. It's also not a home test.
So for those on the BBC website saying "Why can't we have a British test...", these things don't just invent themselves. One needs deep expertise and a platform. Abbot and Roche are the players here.
I don't know, but I'd be willing to bet that PHE isn't exactly over-endowed in the platform of machines to run the test.
Anyone feel scared to death about this?
Now the UN's special envoy for Covid-19 has said the world must get used to restrictions and that life may never go back to the way it was before.
How can this be? This only happens in bad movies right?
So for those on the BBC website saying “Why can’t we have a British test…”
Stiff upper lip can achieve anything, right?!
How can this be? This only happens in bad movies right?
I think we had "becomes endemic" pegged as a realistic outcome quite early in this thread?
In fact, I'd go as far as to say that every country doing lockdown to prevent overfilling the ventilator beds in hospitals, is expecting just that eventual outcome - we're just controlling the speed at which we get there in order to make sure that those that go to hospital get a decent chance at surviving, nothing more.
Compare and contrast lockdown Europe with, say, Mexico City, where, no healthcare, no chance, it's a complete mess and is looking rather a lot like the "do absolutely nothing" plan in action.
we’re just controlling the speed at which we get there in order to make sure that those that go to hospital get a decent chance at surviving, nothing more.
Slowing it down should also give us time to develop treatments other than intubation. There is, however, the possibility that we will never have a vaccine.
I think we had “becomes endemic” pegged as a realistic outcome quite early in this thread?
Sorry - I'm very late to this thread. I'm just worried to hell for the future. Never had issues with anxiety or mental health till now but the thought that l or my family (inc. 2 young kids) will never be able to live the way we have up until now is terrifying. As a species, how can we as individuals never approach anyone ever again? Hold hands, kiss, meet for a celebration, console each other? Im feeling completely despondent after reading this article in particular. I guess its just got to me today 🙁
Anyone feel scared to death about this?
Not really. I live in a country that voted to have extra restrictions on international travel for no good reasons at all (to my mind)… if we are to now have restrictions based on genuine health needs… it’s just more of the same, but less arbitrary. So be it. As for restrictions within the country… we just need to get the virus under control before lifting those restrictions…
How many new deaths today? Anything to suggest we have this under control? Or does it all still point to the obvious conclusion that we’re acting too prematurely lifting some economic restrictions, meaning social restrictions will stay in place for a long time to come…
Speaking of infection rates.
One in 400 people in England has coronavirus, tests suggest
Quite a way to go for herd immunity then.
How many new deaths today? Anything to suggest we have this under control? Or does it all still point to the obvious conclusion that we’re acting too prematurely lifting some economic restrictions, meaning social restrictions will stay in place for a long time to come…
Maybe l came to the wrong thread. Sorry. Was looking for some empathetic responses
Sorry. All those things you list will return to us soon. Not for a while yet… but that’s because of government choices… we’ll need to be more patient about social physical contact than some countries… but that will return, this isn’t endless… ignore scare articles.
Has anyone been to the dentist recently? Looks like a nightmare 🙁
If A&E is anything like this no wonder people are dropping like flies in their homes!
Tired
I can’t disagree with that. Crowd-sourcing policy opinion, seems ridiculous to me.
Seems popular, perhaps we can use it to set base interest rates? Do you want your mortgage repayment to go up or down?
Also I’ve learned with experience that postponing a decision, even an incorrect one, is worse than taking a decision. At least you say you made a wrong choice and correct it.
Sometimes ... I explained this to my lad when we had no sat nav until I got a signal... left or right because sitting here won't change not having a signal....
However it depends on the decisions... few are binary.
Many will limit later choices and many will also lead to probable outcomes of different certainty and severity.
On realtime analytics a first step is usually a traffic light. Keep doing what you are doing, proceed with caution or stop/radically change what you are doing based on a combination of certainty and severity of acting or not.
This is the part the government seems unable to either understand or is deliberately pretending to misunderstand. At each juncture they take the decision that most limits the choices at the next ignoring the lapsed time until infection/symptoms/death (or recovery).
Agree with that last paragraph. Very strongly.
Has anyone been to the dentist recently? Looks like a nightmare 🙁
If A&E is anything like this no wonder people are dropping like flies in their homes!
Posted 8 minutes ago
Without going into exhaustive detail, the Chief Dental Officer is currently presiding over a shambles that is leaving thousands of people almost needlessly in pain or dental distress. It’s also creating a situation that threatens the viability of most dental practices in the future.
There are hundreds of practices that may not survive to reopen after lockdown and no slack in the system for their patients to be seen elsewhere.
There’s a very real risk that this will screw the business model of dentistry (nhs and private) so badly ( due to PPE costs, treatment restrictions and increased time needed for things) that getting dental treatment appointment in the future might be twice as difficult and two or three times as expensive!
If A&E is anything like this no wonder people are dropping like flies in their homes!
In my (limited, secondhand, anecdotal) experience - A&E is a breeze...
One of my mates took his kid to A&E after he poked himself near the eye with a stick (lots of claret apparently).They were out within the hour...
In my (limited, secondhand, anecdotal) experience – A&E is a breeze…
Yes, probably my comparison was misplaced! I'll be laying off the gobstoppers for a while!
Good to know that the common sense of the people can be trusted:
On realtime analytics a first step is usually a traffic light. Keep doing what you are doing, proceed with caution or stop/radically change what you are doing based on a combination of certainty and severity of acting or not.
Which is really all R can give you. Up down or about stable. We are going down at the moment. Easing Lockdown may slow the rate of descent. It will be a while before we go to pre-COVID19 levels of mixing. We know what happens when you do when the virus is freely transmissible.
I'm optimistic for the future: improved treatment (supplementary early O2, rapid testing), therapeutics, and (maybe) some form of vaccination. Timeframe - two years sounds reasonable for full return to normality. Ten to pay for it all.
One needs deep expertise and a platform. Abbot and Roche are the players here.
I don’t know, but I’d be willing to bet that PHE isn’t exactly over-endowed in the platform of machines to run the test.
Just learnt today that we're going to be running our regions testing. We have the Abbott analyser.
Think it can do 100 per hour. It's estimated that we'll receive 1500-2000 per day (normal workload is maybe a couple of hundred at most.) So given the time taken to receive samples, load/unload analyser, report results and cope with the covid PCR swabs AND the normal daily workload, we're going 24/7.
I think virology has 7 WTE of various grades. To staff a lab 24/7. For the foreseeable.
It's great, but God knows how we're going to do it!
is it me or does this make it look very unlikely that schools will be opening soon?
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1260921625391902720
Nah. The Dept. Of Education Scientific Advisor admitted that they didn't actually look at any evidence yesterday, when in front of the Commons Education Select Committee.
Apparently a lot of lea's are sending letters saying your kids can go back to school if you want them to (cambs was one I have been told about)
we haven't had our letter yet but the response is definitely going to be negative for now
Spoke to the nursery teacher today
Didn't rule it out but waiting to see what measures they have in place and class size
Nursery teacher was very keen based on their planned protocols, but would be only a few sessions and half class size.
With today's data though, I really don't see how they can justify it, and shows that data from Iceland was skewed, that Toby young & other anti lockdown nuts that have been citing it were wrong
improved treatment (supplementary early O2, rapid testing),
In France the early tests on using plasma from recovered patients is "encouraging" to the point it's now generally authorised. The use of a polyarthristis drug which was first tried by a couple of GPs, then turned into a test which is now showing promising results is also reducing the gravity of cases - TF1 news this evening, it'll be on replay later.
Add these to the use of drugs to manage the immune response and avoiding some of the treatments which were intitally tried but found to make no difference or even make case worse - progress.
I haven't seen any recent stats on the percentage of people dying once they get to A&E but just comparing the number of deaths to the number of people in intensive care it seems to be going down. The number of active cases has remained around just over 90 000 since 16/4 but the death rate is lower and the number in intensive care is steadily falling. There are all sorts of other explanations possible but on the face of it when people are hospitalised their chances are better now.
If true that is indeed good news. There is nothing really in the press about whether treatments are becoming better.
I like reading this thread and hearing that there are people out there testing and predicting and working on this - good work you all.
I know it’s worrying knowing that things aren’t going back to the old normal but I keep thinking of the three families on my street where everyone is isolating to shield one member and remembering that I’m not staying home and being super careful for myself, it’s to stop this getting anywhere near them.
The one kind of positive thing I read was a New Scientist article which looked at corona viruses which have become less virulent over time - two (one of which was likely to be the cause of the 1889 Russian Flu pandemic) are now just one of the (many) viruses which cause the common cold. Whilst it doesn’t fill me with optimism about vaccines and permanent immunity, viruses do appear to become less dangerous to us over time (not because of herd immunity but because the ones that kill us too effectively wipe themselves out - a less damaging virus reproduces better than a more damaging one). This effect seems to take a couple of years. My view is that we need to limit the damage in the meantime.
I can't quite figure out whether or not this is the right thread for this but: https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-the-uks-top-civil-servant-had-covid-19-at-the-same-time-as-the-pm-the-public-werent-told-11988365
Not exactly 'open and honest government'.
And frankly why I get mad as hell when we get the 'give Boris and the tories a break, they're doing their best' bullshit appearing.
I hate maths.
According to the data released today, 0.27% of the population had C19 in the 2 week period until 10th May.
From Government testing up to 10th May, 219,183 patients had tested positive, of which, 30.3% of those had tested positive in the 2 week period until 10th May.
Using these two data sets, only 0.89% of the population have had C19.
Testing has improved over the last 2 weeks, so the real number is higher than this, but perhaps only by a multiple of 2-3 times.
I can’t quite figure out whether or not this is the right thread for this but:
It certainly paints a picture of senior members of government, including medical & science leads not being able to follow their own advice.
I can see why the government would try to hide it.
is it me or does this make it look very unlikely that schools will be opening soon?
Schools already have opened all over the place: Switzerland, France, Germany, Denmark...
“may be less likely to acquire the disease”
“most present with mild symptoms or are asymptomatic"
“role in transmitting the virus is fairly limited”.
https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covi-19-research-evidence-summaries#transmission
The maths is a little more complex. During the two week period 0.27% tested positive that was during a period after the peak and is a small part of the area under the curve. What one need to do is estimate what fraction of the total epidemic those two weeks represent.
So we estimate total area under that excess death curve. That’s not so hard. Take the number of total cases or deaths on May10, and the number on the first day. That’s your multiplier.
Worldometer gives 157k and 219k
So... prevalence is 0.27x219/(219-157)= 0.95%
To switch the mood slightly, anyone been watching BBC2? Peter Pandemic!
Charlie Brooker is ace. That is all.
I can't get that link to work oob
“may be less likely to acquire the disease”
“most present with mild symptoms or are asymptomatic”
“role in transmitting the virus is fairly limited”.
The data from the ONS seems to contradict the first point
The second point isnt the key one, it's the third point that's important
The C19 conspiracy crap just keeps on growing, I’m wondering if there shouldn’t be a thread specifically to cover the madness that #AngryTinkerbell and his mindless supporters is encouraging.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/ryanhatesthis/youtube-anthony-fauci-deep-state-coronavirus
Ah oob was this the link
https://www.rcpch.ac.uk/resources/covid-19-research-evidence-summaries#transmission
Can children transmit the virus?
The importance of children in transmitting the virus is difficult to establish, in particular given the number of asymptomatic cases,25 but there is some evidence that their role in transmitting the virus is fairly limited. Precise details regarding paediatric transmission cannot be confirmed without widespread sero surveillance, but trends are emerging.
The fact that they may be just as likely to catch it, but much more asymptomatic is worrying
It's a risk gambling that they can't transmit it & is a big one to take, without properly controlled studies to back it up
Don't know what that calculation is supposed to represent Tired but a lot more than 1% of the population have had the disease. About 5-10% very likely and the ONS data is entirely compatible with that though it's hard to be sure as it depends on how long people are infectious for (infectious enough to be caught by the test) and the accuracy of the test itself, which they don't account for in their estimate.
The only thing you can work out from the case numbers in the UK is how the testing policy has changed. They don't represent the epidemic at all through the peak. Maybe just recently they are starting to be useful again, but there are still a lot more cases than reported, probably 3-5x the daily number.
BTW there is some study produced by some joker in Manchester saying 29% of us have had it and we are close to herd immunity....it's utter nonsense. Idiocy. Being splashed all over some papers. A meaningless calculation that they've then extrapolated miles outside of the range of the data....with no uncertainty estimate...it's pure numerology.
Captain, you referring to this https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ijcp.13528?af=R
Yes I was. I didn't want to give the link as just reading it is probably bad for health 🙂
Telegraph throwing a lit of stats around today, saying London only has 24 new cases /day.
The low number of cases being reported in areas of the UK that had the earliest high reported figures appears consistent with the finding "that the only factor relating to reduction in ADIR was the historic number of confirmed number infection/000 popululation". As contained in the Manchester report linked by Piemonster.
The sample excludes hospital and nursing home cases, draws on 11k samples. So not a lot of actual positives. Obviously it’s not just a sample of London either.
I did read the other paper. As I have said, make your own guess of transmission generation time and you can have any R you want and work from there. Oh dear. The meta analysis of multiple countries and communities all point to the same range 3-10%. That’s where we are. Sorry Oxford.
I think we have a reasonable measure of the fatality rate, the location and age breakdown of cases and a much better appreciation of the risk now.
Just got back from Tesco, todays Daily Heil front page is a triumph!!
Spain reckons about 5%
This compares UK and Spanish deaths. I know not like for like due to issues of recording C19 deaths accurately.
Patrick Vallance reckons 4%.
My depressing maths points me towards the low end of estimates.
I reckon the range is down towards 3% to 6%.
A_a is that the teachers one? If so, it just makes me want to give the editor a slap
Yeah, the teachers want a heroic death but those pesky unions are getting in the way!!
Tories and associated commentators championing the interests of disadvantaged children as a means to justify schools reopening is a new low in cynicism and duplicity. No mention of the massive cuts to local and national services over the last decade that have had a wholly negative impact on disadvantaged children and their families.