-
Bit cynical I think. In my experience with bleeding edge modelling research, people just take a shotgun approach and put out as much as they can as quickly as possible with the aim of getting a head start on interpretation of future results. Obviously it's good for your career if you're the one who has the bright idea first but I would hope in public health that's secondary.
e.g. if those antibody tests start coming back 50% positive then now that the Oxford study is out we have an inkling of what it means. End result is we're less likely to end up looking at results we don't understand and (in theory) no harm done if they've got it wrong
frankenbike-
people just take a shotgun approach and put out as much as they can as quickly as possible with the aim of getting a head start on interpretation of future results.
I get this, my issue is that this should all be feeding into other universities, and the DOH, or whoever is co-ordinating this and doing the government modelling. This looks to me very much like briefing to the press to support their own agenda.
Sifta
Its bugging me that these "respectable" institutions are falling over themselves to publish research in its infancy, and the news media is then running with it. Seems to me that a load of academics are seeing the chance to make a name for themselves, and grasping at it.
Imperial say "If left unfettered then 250,000 people could die"
Oxford say "It has been left unfettered and 50%+ have already had it"
If they were both anywhere near correct then, by now, we would have over 125,000 people either dead, or about to die. (Actually more, since the 250K equates to how many will have died once herd immunity kicks in, not 100% of the population getting it). That hasn't happened, so either one or both of these bits of research are spectacularly wrong.
No, but I bet they are praying that Oxford are correct, that's one of the main reasons that they are touting the antibody test as a game changer. and one where they are 100% right to not start shipping the test until they are 100% sure its accurate.
It should also be noted that they seem to be behaving as if Imperial is correct, which is erring on the side of caution. It also seems that they might have managed to ramp up capacity to somewhere near giving the NHS a chance to cope.