I don’t remember seeing the Imperial model for this.https://www.bbc.com/news/education-54827702 …
-
-
Replying to @cjsnowdon
Wow that's a misleading headline. A 'huge' rise of 20% which equates to 10 cases and maybe 1 death? In the whole country across months?
4 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @GidMK
I think the 20% rise refers to the injuries and deaths of children, of which there were over 300 in the 2020 period.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @cjsnowdon
The first sentence "there was a 20% rise" Second paragraph says that this equates to 64 incidents. So roughly up from 52 to 64. Not exactly a huge increase!
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @cjsnowdon
Elizabeth Atherton Retweeted Jodie Reed
8 deaths. 300 cases of serious injury. Is that figure large enough for you now?https://twitter.com/JodeReed/status/1324601426040004609 …
Elizabeth Atherton added,
Jodie Reed @JodeReedShocking rise in abuse of babies during first lockdown. Sadly not inconsistent with messages emerging from my research with @first1001days - the very youngest children faced particular risk https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/nov/06/abuse-babies-up-fifth-covid-19-eight-died-ofsted?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other …1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @ElizAthertonSop @cjsnowdon
At a 20% increase, that would be going from 6-7 deaths last year to 7-8 deaths now. And an extra 10 or so events involving babies. That's literally what you get when you extrapolate the figures
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
I mean, obviously every incident is a tragedy to be prevented, but the language in the piece is terrible science communication and wildly overstates the extent of the increase using relative figures
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.