Scary Peer Reviewed Science - Trigger Warning

[ClimbDad]

Taking Mumsnet HQ’s suggestion on board, this thread is for those who want scientific information about COVID-19. It is clearly advertised as scary, and has a trigger warning, so no complaints from anyone complaining they didn’t know what they were stumbling into.

I’ll only be sharing peer reviewed papers from respected journals and would advise anyone else who wants to share anything to use the same criteria.

The thread isn’t actually designed to scare. It’s designed to inform, so that people can make a decent assessment of risk and lobby decision makers when appropriate. Don’t assume government knows more than you. They’ve been behind the curve on everything.

I’ll start. The Guardian wrote a good article about the progress of respiratory viruses through autumn and how we don’t know whether SARS-COV-2 will compete with flu.

www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/19/what-happens-when-flu-meets-covid-19

The theory of viral competition suggests COVID19 might be kept at bay by flu. In other words infection by other respiratory viruses might help reduce the impact of a second wave.

However this peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Medical Virology suggests flu and COVID19 don’t compete, and coexist simultaneously.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/jmv.26364

The inference is that having SARS-COV-2 circulating at the same time as influenza will cause more serious infection. It doesn’t seem that viral competition will make things better.

Practically what does this mean? I believe it means it is prudent to be even more cautious during flu season than we were in spring, and to do everything possible to reduce transmission. That is going to be particularly relevant to schools. Even if one refuses to accept schools play a role in COVID19 transmission, it is established science that schools are the engines behind influenza transmission every year, so precautionary measures make sense even if just to reduce spread of flu.

@nellodee

Which one of those comments is the one that made you decide to launch a campaign to discredit this poster?

FFS, 'launch a campaign to discredit'?

Since you're genuinely(?) interested, I went and dug back through that thread for you. Here's the kind of thing I meant:

"Sir John Bell doesn’t believe vaccines will offer long term immunity. It really hasn’t dawned on some people what this means. Read some books about what life was like for societies that had to live with highly transmissible disease. The things we’ve taken for granted, large indoor gatherings, concerts, air travel, cinemas, pubs, large schools - will all pose a risk. Some people will accept that risk. Others won’t. Most businesses can’t survive a significant decline in customers. If this virus becomes endemic it will lead to structural social and economic changes."

If this virus becomes endemic, we will react like we have to other viruses which have become endemic, which does not mean that most businesses will not survive and does not mean that 'large indoor gatherings, concerts, air travel, cinemas, pubs, large schools' will be considered dangerously risky by large sections of the population.

Saying "read some books about what life was like for societies that had to live with highly transmissible disease" is actually good advice (in a dark way it's sort of reassuring, I could tell you some absolute horror stories about how blasé people became about smallpox in areas where that was endemic) but it is advice ClimbDad himself should also take, rather than presenting this as facts he knows and his audience doesn't.

Likewise "Ask any immunologist and they will tell you they would have much preferred pandemic flu" - this is just not true. It is not bullying ClimbDad or attempting to discredit ClimbDad or minimising the danger of Covid to say so.

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02058-1

Any thoughts?

I don't think there's anything wrong with the op sharing the report - I found it interesting reading. It seems there definitely needs to be more research around whether covid is airborne but it certainly hasn't been proven it definitely IS yet. Same with that nature article.

We all need to read this stuff for ourselves and not assume the summary from the person posting it is correct.

But Us for Them to need challenging. Many find their name problematic for a start.

The evidence you linked to from the lobby group is one sided (obviously) but I think it is dangerous that Us For Them say evidence is mounting (nope) and compelling and themselves brook no counter evidence ( some of the stuff they still have up is from April!). They are like the antithesis of Climb Dad. You have to agree with a very very loaded question to join their Facebook page.
They also oppose any social distancing at all and rarely , if ever, mention the risks to older children.

@Pianostrings

Climbdad you are lumping UsforThem in with 5G protestors and anti-vaxxers and expecting to be taken seriously?

usforthem.co.uk/evidence They have the support of a significant number of doctors and scientists. They are basing their campaign on the available evidence and a balanced view of other harms children are vulnerable to when they aren't in school.

People are making assumptions that others are taking issue with your posts simply because they want to deny reality or they can't take negative news or it's some weird personal attack against you.

That is completely inaccurate. You have shown across several threads that you barely read other peoples' responses, that even when they say 'yes I agree this virus is serious but ....' you will come back with posts about people denying the seriousness of the virus and say they are ridiculing you and not listening and will regret it and the world will never be the same again. Absolutely fair enough to have a discussion about the latest research on the virus but you seem to have missed there is a long running thread analysing the latest facts and figures where there is an appetite to look at this virus from all angles already.

I am very grateful others are sticking around to politely challenge your posts because I still feel strongly your posts are potentially harmful on the basis they are scaremongering.

If this virus is airborne I am unconvinced a damp, dirty, incorrectly worn mask which is fiddled with repeatedly will help much. I do favour mask-wearing on the basis they might slow spread and hopefully save lives but I also believe as winter sets in people will get better at wearing them anyway. Cases rising plus people being stuck indoors will scare many. I don't want to live in an authoritarian state where everyone is forced to wear one.

The patronising title of this thread proves that. As if we can't handle the truth! No, actually it is useful to have multiple perspectives rather than just ClimbDad and his facts. On a side note, ClimbDad I am glad to see you acknowledge Nature as the gold standard. Was interesting a few threads ago when I shared a quote (not my opinion on it) from a peer reviewed study on T cell immunity in Nature and you said it was wrong based on your own scientific knowledge.

@IloveJKRowling

www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02058-1

Any thoughts?

I think there's a good case for being knowingly deliberately overcautious in situations like this where there's so much uncertainty. Because we don't know exactly how easily it transmits via aerosol (outside specific aerosol-generating procedures anyway), but we know how easily it can spread if whatever methods we're using aren't keeping on top of it. So best to be overcautious and then dial it back if needed, rather than risk the chance of not being cautious enough.

Same as the evidence for cloth masks really. We don't have the kind of RCT-based evidence we'd ideally like that they work and to what degree, but we have a fair amount of evidence that they probably help to at least some degree, so good idea to promote them at least until we know otherwise?

I don't think this can be easily translated into what schools should/shouldn't do because that also has to deal with factors of how much the virus is/isn't circulating in that community. Should kids in New Zealand wear masks in schools, probably not. Should kids in Florida be sent to school even if they have masks, probably not.

However this peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Medical Virology...
The inference is that having SARS-COV-2 circulating at the same time as influenza will cause more serious infection.

Not the basis of the summary in the op's link;

"In summary, our study suggests that COVID-19 might be underdiagnosed because of false-negative tests or co-infection with other respiratory viruses. More extensive viral testing might be needed for accurate etiology identification, particularly if it would affect clinical management decisions."^

@ClimbDad May I ask how widely you feel that masks should be worn in schools? All classes? All year groups?
What about care givers in nursery’s? (children under 2 and some argue 3 shouldn’t wear masks due to small airways hence my focus on the care givers in that setting). I ask as the question regarding the use of masks in school is not as simple as saying it reduces spread. There are likely to be consequences to widespread mask use in child development, child’s mental health etc, just as there are with continued lockdown and closure of schools. Of course a balance needs to be struck between Covid but also the actions we are taking to mitigate the disease. There is already emerging evidence of the negative impact of lockdown on children’s mental health: jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2765196
Of note this article is limited by its small data set, short duration, not fully applicable to UK setting due to style of lockdown being harsher but it does raise issues.

I’m not against masks in schools, especially if the virus is airborne. It’s a concern. What some people seem to fail to acknowledge is that a significant majority of adults are misusing masks and children are going to be worse. The government think a crummy homemade t-shirt mask is adequate and it’s not. I do think masks need better standards and quality checking.

@Clavinova

However this peer reviewed study published in the Journal of Medical Virology... The inference is that having SARS-COV-2 circulating at the same time as influenza will cause more serious infection.

Not the basis of the summary in the op's link;

"In summary, our study suggests that COVID-19 might be underdiagnosed because of false-negative tests or co-infection with other respiratory viruses. More extensive viral testing might be needed for accurate etiology identification, particularly if it would affect clinical management decisions."^

That is because he does not even read the studies properly. Makes own interpretation and then presents this as fact

Golden I still do not see any claims that "Covid means these changes will happen permanently; that we will never go back to anything like ‘normal' "

What I see is someone discussing the possibility that this virus may become endemic and that if this was the case we might make some changes to the way we go about our lives. I see no reason why having this discussion means ClimbDad should not be taken seriously, and the only person I see engaging in hyperbole is you.

I think we need public health campaigns on masks.

www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/when-and-how-to-use-masks

I bet there are people on this thread who have never read as many scientific studies in their whole life as they have in the past week, desperate to prove ClimbDad wrong

I agree and I don't know why we haven't had one. There were lots of them about handwashing.

What I see is someone discussing the possibility that this virus may become endemic and that if this was the case we might make some changes to the way we go about our lives.

No we won’t, though. Like I said, we didn’t for much worse diseases than this. And yes, I do think it’s needless scaremongering to say “it hasn’t quite dawned on people what this means” and then going on to talk about “structural social and economic changes” around schools, businesses and indoor gatherings, in the context of... vaccine immunity not being lifelong. Like, er, lots of vaccines then.

I don’t remotely care if he or you disagree with me on this, I’m happy to discuss it. I do care when he presents it as the truth, which he knows and we don’t, which the government knows and the public aren’t able to face up to, because he’s read books. He isn’t actually better informed than all the people he’s talking to.

Incidentally, one of the reasons I oppose this sort of scaremongering is that it makes people less likely to go along with important but temporary public health measures. If you say “indoor socialising can’t go back as normal right now but this is a short-term measure”, people are more likely to go along with it. If you say “it isn’t temporary, the world has changed forever”, people are more likely to go “well fuck that then I’m going to go and hug my mum.” Not to mention the mental health impact of presenting this as the absolute truth.

This isn’t about bullying and being mean to poor besieged ClimbDad. There is a reason people are telling him he’s coming across badly and asking him to reconsider his approach. These are important issues, they deserve proper conversation, not this condescending “you people can’t handle the truth” attitude followed by his absolute unwillingness to actually discuss things or fully read anyone else’s posts.

@AHF1975 - hallelujah! Finally someone making a comment about the volume of papers available and people cherry picking what information they want to see is a problem. Lots of papers produced at different stages of the pandemic. Our knowledge of the virus is changing all the time.

MN is now suddenly full of ‘science’ experts. Amazing really given that we keep being told we have a shortage of STEM workers!

also, I do think the virus will become endemic, but not because we can’t beat it - rather because the rich countries will beat it and then nobody will be willing enough to pursue a full eradication campaign once it’s less of a global threat. It’ll end up like measles, which still kills a lot of children every year. I would REALLY like to be wrong about this one though.

I actually agree with you rather than ClimbDad on that - I think it will become endemic in a very similar manner to measles, though possibly needing a more frequent vaccination programme like the flu. I also agree with your analysis of rich countries beating it "enough for us".

However, I don't see a reason to say "Nothing this poster ever writes from this point forth is worth taking seriously, due to his view point on Covid as an endemic virus." I realise that it's me being the hyperbolic one here, but you hopefully take my point. We should be able to disagree with people without advocating shutting them down.

@climbdad sorry if I have missed this but what is your field of work?

We should be able to disagree with people without advocating shutting them down.

I haven’t advocated shutting him down. I think he should talk more in threads he starts, actually, just with people rather than at them.

Cherry picking is always a problem. But so is presenting nuance. We are a society that has become used to receiving our advice in 3 word catch phrases. I understand that each one of us will argue that we do not do this individually, but recent years have shown us how effectively that works. I have made many posts on here, arguing not that "this" definitely is the case, or "that" is, but rather that there is no clear consensus. However, I see that posts which are very soundbitey often get a lot of traction and support. I worry that admitting nuance is often seen as being unsure. To be clear, I don't think this is an issue with Mumsnet, but the whole world.

Yeah i agree here too. I think the problems stem from statements about being a scientist. A scientist would properly evaluate studies, not put them out in their rawest form and make a blanket conclusion. Also a scientist would be used to people being critical or questioning things, yet in these threads people that do this are either completely ignored by the OP or told they cannot face reality, which isn't true. It ends up where the threads become tense and full of arguments and actually the original message is lost

There are a few posters whose posts I read really carefully, because I always agree with them and admire the way they present their arguments. ClimbDad isn't one of them. Neither am I. I tend to alternate between being preachy and mistimed humour. That said, if I was going to tone police someone on Mumsnet, I definitely don't think ClimbDad would be on the top of my list.

I wouldn't make judgements on who is, and is not, a scientist. I've read posts from doctors saying there is no such thing as a biological female body, so you know, training isn't everything.

I read a really good article about the sheer volume of studies that are taking place regarding covid at the moment. And that often there is a rush to publish before they've been properly peer reviewed. I think it's so hard to take an informed stance on something when there is such a huge volume of information out there. And even if you read the same report you can take something different from it - as the op has shown.