Could someone translate Whitty for me please

[notevenat20]

The BBC reports him as saying

"He said cases were increasing "quite rapidly" among older teenagers and under-21s, but the rate of transmission among school-age children was not changing very much."

But I am not sure what that means. Is he saying that the number of new infections per week is going up rapidly in the first category and not the second? I don't know what rate means here.

Because if he is saying the number of new infections is static weekly for school age children, it's hard to see how that could be the case unless all the infections of children are coming from adults.

He means university students and sixth formers.

Sorry, I mean year 13 or whatever they are.

He was discussing what was on the slide on the screen, it might be easier to look for the slide or watch it back.

Younger children cases have not been increasing much, the line has seemed steady throughout. Teenagers and under 21s the increase has been quite rapid.

unless all the infections of children are coming from adults
Nobody can confirm 100%, but scientific evidence to date suggests this is the most likely explanation for the young children, because they are less likely to catch Covid so they catch it from higher risk events like a shared home overnight. They may also spread it less to others, though again there isn't scientific certainty about thid.
Older teenagers on the other hand can catch covid more easily and spread it more easily.

“The rate of transmission among school-age children was not changing very much” tells us very little. The rate could be stable, but high, in which case number of cases would be increasing, or stable but low, in which case it would be decreasing.

The slide showing that the test positivity rate was low in children is meaningless unless we know how many are being tested. If loads with colds are being tested this percentage may well be low.

The slide we really wanted to see - number of new cases broken down by age - was conspicuously absent.

He was discussing what was on the slide on the screen, it might be easier to look for the slide or watch it back.

What's the easiest way to find those slides? iPlayer?

Slides here.

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/923117/2020-09-30_COVID-19_press_conference_slides_.pdf

Thanks!

@HipTightOnions

“The rate of transmission among school-age children was not changing very much” tells us very little. The rate could be stable, but high, in which case number of cases would be increasing, or stable but low, in which case it would be decreasing.

The slide showing that the test positivity rate was low in children is meaningless unless we know how many are being tested. If loads with colds are being tested this percentage may well be low.

The slide we really wanted to see - number of new cases broken down by age - was conspicuously absent.

Also meaningless when the BMJ have said that, around 50% of infected children do not have one of the cure three symptoms. So 50% of cases will be being missed, presuming the other 50% are being tested.

I don’t understand how 15-16 year olds (at school) are a flat line whilst 17-18 year olds (college) are going up fairly steeply.

There can’t be much physiologically different between these two age groups and they are both age groups who go out and mix but not in pubs. So why the marked difference? I would understand if the 15-16 years were increasing slightly, but less than 17-18 year olds. But the magic of “school” seems somewhat bizarre.

And I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I like and believe Chris Whitty. It’s just this seems so odd.

The slide we really wanted to see - number of new cases broken down by age - was conspicuously absent

What we really want is the ONS survey broken down by age.

@Hmmph

I don’t understand how 15-16 year olds (at school) are a flat line whilst 17-18 year olds (college) are going up fairly steeply.

There can’t be much physiologically different between these two age groups and they are both age groups who go out and mix but not in pubs. So why the marked difference? I would understand if the 15-16 years were increasing slightly, but less than 17-18 year olds. But the magic of “school” seems somewhat bizarre.

And I’m not a conspiracy theorist and I like and believe Chris Whitty. It’s just this seems so odd.

They aren’t, the cases by setting from PHE show that schools are the biggest educational settings linked to outbreaks. That’s before you factor in cases being missed as children present differently. It’s outright lies and deflection at this point. Putting school staff at risk and in turn children, when closures happen.

Also the uneven groupings is really annoying.

So an age group covering 6 years (5-10), then 4 years (11-14), then 2 years twice (15-16, 17-18) then 3 years (19-21).

It’s really annoying and un-mathimatic!

@notevenat20

The BBC reports him as saying

"He said cases were increasing "quite rapidly" among older teenagers and under-21s, but the rate of transmission among school-age children was not changing very much."

But I am not sure what that means. Is he saying that the number of new infections per week is going up rapidly in the first category and not the second? I don't know what rate means here.

Because if he is saying the number of new infections is static weekly for school age children, it's hard to see how that could be the case unless all the infections of children are coming from adults.

The graph he was referring to was about the percentage of people testing positive if they had a test. So the percentage of tests in the 11 to 16 age group that came back positive was unchanged. What he failed to disclose was if the number of people having tests in that group had changed. It was intentionally misleading.

Say before September 200 11to 16 year old where getting tested per day then around 10 where testing positive. If the number has gone up to 20000 tests per day in that age range then the number of positive tests has also shot up massively.

Not accepting that 17-18 year olds are school age ground my gears. Weasel words...

I don’t understand how 15-16 year olds (at school) are a flat line whilst 17-18 year olds (college) are going up fairly steeply.

17-18 year olds having sex, ie prolonged close contact with heavy breathing. It has been Freshers Week after all!

17 year olds are not at university though, they'd still be at school (or college).

I though he meant school age as in compulsory school age, ie up to 16.

Older teens meaning 16/17 (year 12 and equivalent) and upwards.

He could have been clearer

It is compulsory to be in education until 18 now, it changed a few years ago. Although that education doesn't have to be in school, there are a lot of 17-18 year olds in school.

At our school Sixth Formers 16-18 year olds are in smaller classes (Max 20) than the younger years (30+) and share the same classrooms so I'm curious why the rate would be so much higher.

In Scotland you have 17 year olds in uni

The split in ages would be because these groups have sufficiently different lifestyles to affect their % infection rate

e.g. 15-16 year-olds have far more independence about going out compared to age 14 and under
17-18 year olds are nearly adult in what they are allowed to do
19-21 are full adults who do what they want, often living away from home at uni etc,

It's what happens in the hours when they are not in education,
i.e. their social lives and types of contacts

It is compulsory to be in education until 18 now, it changed a few years ago. Although that education doesn't have to be in school, there are a lot of 17-18 year olds in school.

It’s not quite that, it’s education or training and that can include volunteering at your local cancer research shop for 20 pounds a week.

Also the different age groups might need different measures to reduce infection

I think around 50% of 17-18 year olds are in school normally.