Oxford Uni Virologist Professor blackballed for going against COVID-19 narrative

[Cupcakke]

Professor Sunetra Gupta is sceptical of lockdown measures.

She has recently revealed that she is struggling to get published as a result.

www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/05/the-costs-are-too-high-the-scientist-who-wants-lockdown-lifted-faster-sunetra-gupta?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

www.standard.co.uk/news/londoners-diary/the-londoner-let-children-be-exposed-to-viruses-says-professor-gupta-a4538386.html

Hmmm. I think if her assumption that we have much more herd immunity than thought were true, the virus wouldn't currently be increasing exponentially. There is no evidence to back up her claims, whereas there is evidence of how much antibody there is in the general population (8% countrywide, up to 15% in London. T-cells might give more, we just don't know yet.

Also, reinfection is possible so herd immunity is actually not possible without a vaccine.

Along with Carl Heneghan, Sunetra Gupta was present at the Sunday Sage meeting with Boris Johnson...for someone who is struggling to get published, she's been getting about quite a bit - Newsnight, Question Time, articles by or about in most of the major papers, often a talking head on the news representing the opposing view (ie herd immunity... let the children all get it etc)

Personally I'd rather hear a little less from her.

But she’s everywhere at the moment, she was on Question Time last week. It’s not like she’s not getting plenty of airtime

the virus wouldn't currently be increasing exponentially

It’s not though.

She's a virologist meaning she knows alot about viruses particularly about how they behave in an individual, mechanisms of transmission etc. However she isn't an epidemiologist, who has the same level of expertise in how viruses behave in a population.

It's like saying you are going to a professor of cardiology with your rash, instead of a GP. The cardiologist knows alot about your body, and much more than the GP about certain bits of it. However that doesn't make them qualified to treat your rash.

She is a theoretical epidemiologist.

I’ve read about her four times this morning. It doesn’t really feel like she’s being suppressed, does it?

It was Gupta’s team that first suggested that immunity was at 50% in late March and then suggested herd immunity was 20% and we’d already reached it which would prevent a second wave. Neither of which have worked out well in a RL application.

Are you sure it’s the lockdown views and not poor quality work with an obvious problem in the modelling that’s failing to get through peer review?

Probably a tory

I think she is wrong In fact.

However I think it is very wrong a very dangerous to not let her stuff be published. It is important all voices of the scientific community have their say in this there is def stuff we do not know about a virus that has only been in existence for six months.

Interesting some here with absolutely no credentials think they still know more than her, an actual epidemiologist. Probably a Tory? Grow up . It’s the Tories in government doing something she disagrees with! What a foolish comment.
Getting headlines is not the same as having work published. The disgusting abuse those that signed the letter have got on social media is shocking. The point of science is to question. They’re doing what they’re trained to do.

Scientific work undergoes peer review. When your peers think your research is of poor quality it, quite rightly, is not published.

Her work has repeatedly shown to be of such poor quality that in most roles she'd have been sacked, not all over the place spreading dangerous rubbish.

The point of the science is to question, hence all the publically available pre-prints.

The point of the peer reviewed journals is to have people with credentials sort the wheat from the chaff and work out what (from what I assume must be hundreds of papers at this point) deserves to get published.

I think that her opinions should be heard and discussed. I am more concerned that Neil Ferguson is still being interviewed when he was caught blatantly breaking the lockdown he was responsible for.

@milly she has been peer reviewed and her writing found to be inadequate. This is why she is not being published in the places she wants to be published.

Which hasn't stopped her gaining a high profile and a loud voice in many public spaces.

Even with the minor postgrad education I have on epidemiology I can see that her main assertions are not borne out in real world applications... Unless you are also asserting that the global infection data is being manipulated, that the published data is incorrect?!?

Think about what she is saying, not her figures, her main assumptions. If she is right what do you think infection rates would look like now, would have looked like over the last few months?

Take either of her her immunity % rates, it doesn't matter which.

Work it through. What do you get?

Her work has undergone review by her peers (you know, scientists who know at least as much as she does), and been found wanting. That is why she is struggling to get published. It's not some global conspiracy to silence dissenting voices; it's because her hypotheses do not stand up to scrutiny.

@Qasd

I think she is wrong In fact.

However I think it is very wrong a very dangerous to not let her stuff be published. It is important all voices of the scientific community have their say in this there is def stuff we do not know about a virus that has only been in existence for six months.

It would be dangerous to publish her work because it would give it a veneer of authenticity and credibility that others in her field say it should not have.

She was way off base with her theory earlier in the year that 50% of the population had been infected.

If one reads the Guardian article linked to above I think she is correct that the virus has been here longer than we are being told.

It has been proven that antibody tests are not an accurate test of the numbers exposed to the virus as not everyone produces antibodies, antibodies may not last longer than a few months and there is the theory that some people have been exposed to corona and fought it off with T Cells.
From what I understand Gupta does not seem to be saying we should simply carry on as normal but admit that an elimination strategy probably won't work and so we should carry on with preventative measures like social distancing etc but not lockdown so much.
I personally think that schools should have been open in the summer term as more could have been done outside and school children and teachers would have been exposed to a lower viral load. Now there is chaos as there are the normal winter bugs starting to circulate and it is going to be hard for people to tell if their kids have flu or covid and it is already clear that testing capacity is insufficient.

@MillyMollyFarmer

the virus wouldn't currently be increasing exponentially

It’s not though.

@MillyMollyFarmer how is it not? Doubling every seven days currently.

@myrtilles

If one reads the Guardian article linked to above I think she is correct that the virus has been here longer than we are being told. It has been proven that antibody tests are not an accurate test of the numbers exposed to the virus as not everyone produces antibodies, antibodies may not last longer than a few months and there is the theory that some people have been exposed to corona and fought it off with T Cells. From what I understand Gupta does not seem to be saying we should simply carry on as normal but admit that an elimination strategy probably won't work and so we should carry on with preventative measures like social distancing etc but not lockdown so much. I personally think that schools should have been open in the summer term as more could have been done outside and school children and teachers would have been exposed to a lower viral load. Now there is chaos as there are the normal winter bugs starting to circulate and it is going to be hard for people to tell if their kids have flu or covid and it is already clear that testing capacity is insufficient.

I agree that the virus has been around for longer than at first thought - there's a lot of evidence for that. I think the danger is in her claim that we are closer to herd immunity than antibody testing suggests. I've read quite a bit about the prevalence of a memory t-cell response, but even if that is widespread, it does not bring us any closer to herd immunity because t-cells don't make a person immune. They might limit the severity of the disease if reinfected, but they won't stop that individual being infected and passing it on to the significant number of naive subjects.

Agree with everything @myrtilles said.

We still don’t know how many people were infected as many may have produced t-cells not antibodies and this can still provide protection. It’s not as clear cut as we think.

Also think schools should have gone back in May to be honest. Lots of outside learning. (And vitamin D and exercise). Maybe have it staggered. I have no idea how people think unleashing every child back to school in September ( and lots back to work) just as we go in to autumn and flu season is a good idea?? If it had been more of a staggered start through May- end of July would there have been as much pressure on testing? There wouldn’t have been as many colds around, children would have actually had a bit of an education for a few months. Maybe we would have built up a bit more immunity before winter. Then we would have had a natural break of 6 weeks summer holidays..

Also love that many on here think they know more than professionals in this field. Discussion is good! Let’s not silence experts in this field. They will never agree, hence we have no strategy but we shouldn’t silence discussion!

But to be fair the data does not show doubling every 7 days. And even in France and Italy the cases have not doubled every 7 days. Maybe every 10 days would be more realistic.

I know some people who know her, and say she’s quite lovely but always a bit of a reactionary, and has absolutely flipped over this.