Background: I have a PhD in Biological Sciences, where I analysed omics' data to determine novel biomarkers for respiratory disease. During the start of the pandemic I worked on behalf of a University building systems for the Welsh NHS that enabled clinical research nurses a method to electronically store COVID samples electronically for future biobank use.
I started my new role as an Advanced Data Analyst for a Welsh health-board earlier this year. I'm directly involved in the modelling of COVID, and in the provision of analytics to the Welsh Assembly Government.
They always lean towards the intervention/restriction/lockdown viewpoint at every point.
From our point of view, we always try and avoid intervention / restriction / lockdown. In our modelling we account for likely mental health damage to the public, and whether - using our own recorded data - people are likely to respect said government sanctioned actions if needed. We are instructed to look
well beyond restrictions for potential solutions, and over the past year we have done everything in our power to ensure that every other precaution is taken prior to nodding toward the viewpoint you've stated above.
I would like to see more balance and a full analysis of the implications of another lockdown provided as well. I feel another lockdown will do considerably more societal damage than the health benefits of a lockdown.
None of our modelling indicates that another lockdown will do "considerably more societal damage" than what's currently being modelled with Omicron. I converse regularly with both private and publically-funded public health data analysts across the UK, and whilst the mental health aspect of lockdown has obviously been an issue - it's nothing compared to what all of our indicators are currently telling us.
You can keep calling people uninformed or whatever, but not all advisors think the same, and not all advice is good advice. And that's fine, because that's life and people think differently. But I do not feel there is enough balance to the debate, and people are too quick to call for restrictions.
I would push back on the assumption that we're "too quick to call for restrictions". We've practically allowed COVID to rip throughout the UK because of the aforementioned costs associated to mental health and public acceptability, taking huge precautions with cancellation of elective surgery and routine checkups. From a public health standpoint - sacrifices have already been made.
Moreover, the debate within the community is highly varied - it's by no means a nodding dog contest.
Up until recently we've pushed back and had push back for our analyses - and this is fine - it's science, expect criticism. But what's important to understand is that we're in a
very different place today than we were before Omicron was first found. The work shown during Whitty and co's presentation was of the 'glass half-full' variety, and that was outright dreadful regardless.
We are in a very different, and better place, than 12 months ago, due to the vaccine. So the no.1 issue as far as I see it, is increasing take up of the vaccine. That's the most practical thing we can all do.
And of course, take up the vaccine.
Everyone should take up a vaccine when offered to them.
www.thelondoneconomic.com