Since there seems to be confusion about the 2 Sep-16 Oct ONS ad hoc teacher risk study published 6 Nov, let me highlight a few key points (THREAD). 1/10 https://twitter.com/skynews/status/1345998975661314048
The ONS study named 4 teacher categories: nursery (4%), primary (18%), secondary (23%), and Teacher of unknown type [ToUT] (63%).

ToUT was largest: included anyone who wrote “teacher” or “teaching assistant” instead of eg “primary teacher” or “primary teaching assistant.” 2/10 https://twitter.com/sarahdrasmussen/status/1343639170011574272
If you separate out the named primary+nursery group (22%), the remaining “Most teachers” group (78%) was notably higher than Other professions, Other key workers, & Patient facing key workers.

It’s only “no evidence” because so low confidence, due to tiny sample size. 3/10 https://twitter.com/sarahdrasmussen/status/1343639196976762882
Plus, it makes sense to separate out the primary+nursery group, because 2-11yr-olds had half the prevalence of secondary students for the time period relevant to teacher infections counted in the study.

And this cut off just before a disproportionate surge for 2-11yr-olds. 4/10 https://twitter.com/sarahdrasmussen/status/1343639187254353920
In context of risk differences that increase over time, taking lump sums (vs showing time dependence) reduces the apparent risk difference.

Eg, using the same methods for a later ONS healthcare worker study would have produced opposite conclusions to that study’s findings. 5/10 https://twitter.com/sarahdrasmussen/status/1343644778248990724
Although a Public Health Scotland study appealed to the 2 Sep-16 Oct ONS teacher study to cast doubt on the PHS study’s own findings, it found a

1.47 (1.37-1.57) confirmed case hazard ratio (ie 47% higher) for teachers 3 Sep-26 Nov, vs age/sex-controlled comparators. 6/10 https://twitter.com/sarahdrasmussen/status/1343644811480477703
Since teachers had far fewer 51-65-yr-olds than the general population and these 51-65yo teachers had lower relative case count, the hospitalisations HR then for teachers as a whole was .98 (.67-1.45). Even then, this broad CI overlapped that for teacher cases (1.37-1.57). 7/10
The PHS study authors felt their hospitalisations HR raised doubts on their cases HR—despite the former’s consistence with age-stratified cases data. Their speculations that high case HRs might just be due to increased tests are not supported by test data in their appendix. 8/10
I bring this PHS study up because there are so few UK covid studies from THIS SCHOOL YEAR comparing teachers to other groups.

Sadly, that didn’t stop the PHE press office from suggesting invalid comparisons the ONS had specifically warned against making (for a third study). 9/10 https://twitter.com/sarahdrasmussen/status/1343644793893773315
And of course, all these studies took place before the B117 variant gained regional dominance.

We’re in utterly new territory now. No one, including Matt Hancock, should continue using words like “is” for a study from 2 Sep-16 Oct

...even if he gets the study wrong. 10/10 https://twitter.com/_nickdavies/status/1344746868367101952
You can follow @SarahDRasmussen.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:
Those who think consciousness raising & movement building are disconnected, or even a distraction from electoral politics have not paid attention to the history of social change.In this thread, we
Read more
The 2020s will be known as the Remote Work decadeA few predictions of what is likely to emerge[ a thread ] Third Space: Office and Working from Home will
Read more
1/29: Have you ever had a concept explained to you that helps frame complex issues you’ve been wrestling with and opens your eyes to new possibilities? A concept that I
Read more
By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.