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

A growth rate of 7% per day would result in a doubling every 10 days, a growth rate of 10.4% would result in a doubling every 7 days.

Latest growth rate estimate is a range between +2% and +7% although that's from last week, so slightly out of date.
www.gov.uk/guidance/the-r-number-in-the-uk

Every 10 days is probably a reasonable best estimate for current growth and the UK is currently on a similar trajectory to Spain and France.

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.

18 days in France and Spain. The 7 day thing yesterday wasn’t even a prediction, as they said, at the top of their scaremongering graph was a ‘what if’ we saw doubling every 7 days. It was very irresponsible.

@Delatron

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!

I'm not an expert but as far as I'm aware the process of peer review involves professionals in the field looking at and taking the paper apart where necessary before publication. If they are submitting papers and they are continually falling down at peer review then perhaps there is an issue with the work.

If she thinks the peer review process is an issue, I'm sure there are plenty of non-peer reviewed journals she can submit to if it's important to get it published without scrutiny.

Scientifically, I can't see there is much benefit to publishing it only to have it retracted later because we've decided publishing a range of views for balance is how we now the criteria for what gets published.

@Ontopofthesunset

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’m just quoting from the briefing yesterday by Whitty and Vallance.

I’m just quoting from the briefing yesterday by Whitty and Vallance.

They said it wasn’t a prediction or based on current data. It was a ‘what if’ scenario. It is not doubling every 7 days, here or anywhere else in Europe, and neither Whitty or Valance actually said it was. You didn’t pay attention to the actual words used, or read the words on their own graph which start with if.

It's unhelpful to conflate people's misunderstanding of the graphs from Whitty et al and the scientific disagreements over various measures.

The first is an error made by people who didn't listen/read clearly enough

The second is a disagreement between one scientist and her peers. Much of what she says has merit, but many of her figures and conclusions have no stable foundation. That's why she isn't published. But she hasn't been silenced, she has the government's ear, television presence etc.

And can we stop with the should have sent kids back to school over summer, outdoor learning etc. Lots of teachers carried on over summer, key workers kids etc. You just don't know about it, didn't remember it, because, well, teachers!!!

No-one knows what the current rate is, since the number of tests available is 4x less than the number seeking test (the incompetent Dido Harding's own admission). The country's leading scientists and epidemiologists have access to all the latest data and a better idea than mumsnet. If they chose to use doubling every 7 days that's most likely because they think we either are there now or will be in a few days.

There is no balance in giving rubbish the same weight as evidence based views.

Any idiot with a view can put it forward but having it published in peer reviewed journals requires that there be some scientific truth in it.

If they chose to use doubling every 7 days that's most likely because they think we either are there now or will be in a few days.

We aren’t there though, or even close. It is not doubling every 7 days. They haven’t said they believe it will be there soon either, in fact they specified its not a prediction. I’m not sure how much clearer it can be. They gave the scariest outcome based on a ‘what if’ scenario. Not on even the most likely scenario, which is that we follow france and Spain and have 10,000 not 50,000, by October.

@curiousaboutsamphire - No one is saying that in the summer term teachers weren't working. Secondary schools were only open for key worker children for most of the term and 25% of year 10 and 12 in the last few weeks. Therefore most students weren't in and most teachers were teaching remotely from home. This meant that any students in school were socially distanced and often in the largest rooms. This is completely different from having 30 kids plus a teacher in a normal classroom with no social distancing.

@myrtilles I was making a general point about the continuing "all could have been done better" type of posts that suggest schools could have been fully reopened from May, through summer etc.

I'm well aware of how schools have been open, I'm an ex teacher with many friends and family still teaching.

There's a lot of misunderstanding about how teachers were/ are working. Usually because a persistent number of MNers say they have a relative/friend/neighbour who is a teacher who hasn't worked a millisecond since March!

@MillyMollyFarmer

If they chose to use doubling every 7 days that's most likely because they think we either are there now or will be in a few days.

We aren’t there though, or even close. It is not doubling every 7 days. They haven’t said they believe it will be there soon either, in fact they specified its not a prediction. I’m not sure how much clearer it can be. They gave the scariest outcome based on a ‘what if’ scenario. Not on even the most likely scenario, which is that we follow france and Spain and have 10,000 not 50,000, by October.

I've just rewatched it to check. To quote Patrick Valance 'at the moment we think the epidemic is doubling every 7 days. It could be a little bit longer, a little bit shorter, but let's say roughly every seven days.' The graph then shows what would happen if the doubling rate continues at the rate they estimate it is at now.

And it can't be a worst case scenario, because in March/April the doubling rate was every 3-4 days and as far as I remember, this was consistent across several countries in Europe. Not an expert, but it would seem logical to me to use that as the worst case scenario if you were going to use a figure.

Their graph they used says ‘if’. Have you seen the current data from September? It’s not doubling every 7 days, here or in France or Spain. That is a fact.

Here are daily new cases since Sept 12:
3,497
3,330
2,619
3,991
3,395
4,322
4,422
3,899
4,368

The entire 7 day thing seems to be based on one week at end of Aug beginning sept, but not observed any other week. Again, not doubling every 7 days. It’s more likely we’ll see similar to France and Spain, doubling every 18 days

I suspect the 7 day thing is based on a set of data that the experts have access to and the public don't. The daily data dashboard isn't the only set of available data, there's the ONS for a start.

Having rewatched, I don't think it's fair to accuse people of not listening properly. It seems quite clear that the position of the government scientists is that it is doubling roughly every 7 days and that the graph is showing what would happen if it continued to double at that rate. I suspect unclearly labelled graph is the issue here, not some sort of conspiracy by the government scientists.

government scientists is that it is doubling roughly every 7 days

But it isn’t. It just isn’t. I can’t understand people accepting a demonstrably false claim like that. You can see it’s not by the official figures. It’s not even doubling every 7 days in the countries we track behind. They haven’t got info on cases we don’t have. Why would they withhold it and give us numbers that disprove their theory?

Oh well. Nevermind. Let’s lock down again based on false data and ruin thousands of lives.

I think her view is very important. Who else is questioning governments on this?

Well there's always Van Morrison, or David Icke ....

As an academic I spend a lot of time carrying out peer review. I have recommended publication of papers whose findings I wholeheartedly disagree with, because they were clearly written, followed rigorous procedures, used appropriate safeguards and showed transparency throughout.

Peer review is quality control. It's not censorship!!

@MillyMollyFarmer

Here are daily new cases since Sept 12: 3,497 3,330 2,619 3,991 3,395 4,322 4,422 3,899 4,368

Actually, those are the daily figures for positive tests, but, as you may have heard, there have been some problems with the availability of tests and the effectiveness of the infrastructure available to process them. The understanding that cases are now doubling every 7-8 days is based on ongoing Medical Research Council analysis, which uses a range of data, not just the raw test numbers.

@Calledyoulastnightfromglasgow

I think her view is very important. Who else is questioning governments on this?

I think alternative views (from people with the relevant expertise) are important, for example to avoid group think and to challenge consensus (if evidence based).

But you also need to avoid false equivalence when it comes to fringe views. Her view is not the opposing view in the sense that it represents one half of a 50/50 split, it's an outlier view which most other people with relevant expertise disagree with.

Therefore when she appears on Question Time as the only scientist / expert on the panel (as happened last week) it can give a misleading impression. As does cherry picking her view without context, which risks creating the impression that its the consensus or majority view or implying it's the 'correct' view.

As a previous poster pointed out her "up to 50% have been infected claim" in March, turned out to be very wrong and was one most other experts disagreed with at the time.

Link: amp.ft.com/content/5ff6469a-6dd8-11ea-89df-41bea055720b?__twitter_impression=true

@MillyMollyFarmer It's very difficult to get a test at the moment. Hundreds, probably thousands, are being missed. The Covid Zoe app estimates new cases at around 10,000 per day today.

Don’t both her papers appear to contradict each other any way?

If up to 50% of the U.K. population was infected and we were near herd immunity, then the level for herd immunity can’t be 20%. Similarly if the level required for herd immunity is around 20% then it seems unlikely 50% were infected by the end of March because the virus would have stopped circulating rapidly long before we got to that point.

I think they put the number at 6000-7000 in the press conference yesterday.