̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - Alexandra Freeman

Interactive tool helps you decide how to protect yourself and others from COVID-19

sc604 — Thu, 02 Dec 2021 00:08:47 +0000

A new interactive graphic developed by UK researchers and published by ̽��ֱ��BMJ will help people decide what to do in everyday situations to protect themselves, and others, from COVID-19.

Based on estimates provided by 26 international experts, it shows the different pathways that may be taken by the virus that causes COVID-19 when it transfers between two people.

It is designed to help illustrate the risks of catching COVID-19 in different scenarios - and what can be done to reduce those risks - based on the available evidence.

As well as the areas of scientific consensus, it also conveys the uncertainties and the disagreement that exists between experts about how the virus behaves, how it is transmitted, and how we can best reduce the likelihood of transmission through personal and social measures.

̽��ֱ��researchers say the tool should support decision-makers and the public to make informed decisions about how to reduce virus transmission in different contexts, such as how to make a workplace or a public area as safe as it can be while still being open and functional.

To create the tool, the researchers, led by the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge, consulted 26 experts from a range of disciplines and countries, asking them for every value needed to underpin the graphic.

These included the importance of different virus transmission routes (eg. small and large airborne droplets, contact with contaminated surfaces) during a range of activities (eg. talking, coughing, exercising, eating) in different environments (eg. outdoors or indoors in different sized rooms, with or without ventilation).

They also gathered estimates on the importance of different protective measures, such as face coverings and screens, physical distancing, hand hygiene, surface cleaning, in reducing transmission.

Analysis of all the values showed that airborne transmission routes were most important in almost all situations, while face coverings, especially when worn by an infected person as a form of source control, were the most important mitigation measure.

But importantly, all routes were considered to play a part in transmission, and simple measures such as physical distancing, hand washing, and respiratory hygiene all made a useful contribution.

̽��ֱ��researchers found important evidence gaps and differences in opinion among experts around several variables, including the role of aerosol transmission; the effects of different kinds of masks on inhaled aerosols; and the effects of face coverings on transfer from hand to eyes, nose, and mouth.

“Everyone has been keen to know how much difference each possible action we’ve been told about makes, and finally we have been able to gather together enough knowledge from experts from around the world and in a range of fields to answer those questions,” said co-lead author Dr Alexandra Freeman from Cambridge’s Winton Centre for Risk & Evidence Communication.

She added: “ ̽��ֱ��tool is interactive, so that you can explore the scenarios that are most relevant to you, whether it’s because you sing in a choir, or want to know about the risks of eating in a small restaurant. How much difference would it make if you opened the windows, or cleaned the surfaces? Have a look and find out.”

“It is all too easy to focus on just a single route of spread for COVID and forget about all the others,” said co-author Harry Rutter from the ̽��ֱ�� of Bath. “One of the ways a tool like this can help is by making it clear that all the transmission routes matter, in different proportions in different contexts. ̽��ֱ��fact that one of those routes - airborne transmission - is the main one in most situations doesn’t mean that we can ignore the others.”

̽��ֱ��authors acknowledge some study limitations and say generating robust evidence on the complex and highly contingent routes of COVID-19 virus transmission is not straightforward. But they say they hope their approach will prove helpful to those faced with the challenge of communicating complex, imprecise, and uncertain evidence in the future.

̽��ֱ��research was supported by the PROTECT COVID-19 National Core Study on transmission and environment (managed by the Health and Safety Executive on behalf of HM Government), and the David and Claudia Harding Foundation. Cambridge co-authors on the paper also included Dr Shaun Fitzgerald from the Department of Engineering and Professor David Spiegelhalter from the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication.

Reference:
Alexandra LJ Freeman et al. ‘Expert elicitation on the relative importance of possible SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and the effectiveness of mitigations.’ BMJ Open (2021). DOI: 10.1136/ bmjopen-2021-050869

Harry Rutter et al. ‘Visualising SARS-CoV-2 transmission routes and mitigations.’ BMJ (2021). DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-065312

Adapted from a BMJ press release.

Is it risky to sing in a choir? What are the risks of eating in a small restaurant? How much difference does it make to open windows or clean surfaces? New interactive tool helps people make decisions on COVID-19.

Everyone has been keen to know how much difference each possible action we’ve been told about makes, and finally we have been able to gather together enough knowledge from experts from around the world and in a range of fields to answer those questions

Alexandra Freeman

Will Stahl-Timmins, ̽��ֱ��BMJ

COVID-19 risk calculator

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

Yes

UK public ‘most concerned’ about coronavirus – more than Spain or Italy, study suggests

fpjl2 — Wed, 06 May 2020 08:22:53 +0000

A new study of public attitudes across Europe, America and Asia has found that people in the UK have the highest overall levels of concern about coronavirus – more than Italy or Spain – while those in South Korea are the least concerned.

Researchers from the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge conducted surveys on how people feel and think about the risk of the virus between mid-March and mid-April, across ten different countries with varying approaches to tackling the pandemic.

̽��ֱ��study, co-authored by Dr Sarah Dryhurst and Dr Claudia Schneider from the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication, measured risk perception by combining people’s ratings of how prevalent, how life-threatening, and how worrying they thought the virus was.

̽��ֱ��Cambridge team also set out to uncover some of the key psychological factors behind people’s concern. ̽��ֱ��findings, based on data from 6,991 participants, are published today in the Journal of Risk Research.

“Without pharmaceutical treatment, we are relying on people changing their behaviour to put the brakes on this pandemic,” said Dr Sander van der Linden, study lead and Director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab.

“ ̽��ֱ��willingness to adopt protective behaviours such as frequent hand-washing or physical distancing is likely to be influenced, in part, by how risky people perceive the virus to be.”

“We think this is the first comparative evidence of how people perceive the risk of COVID-19 around the world,” he said.

In the study’s sample, Spain followed the UK for greatest public concern about coronavirus, with the US in third place. Although remaining differences were smaller, Germany came in fourth above Sweden – where the government has been less proscriptive about lockdowns – followed by Australia then Japan.

Perhaps surprisingly, Italy – the pandemic’s first European epicentre – ranked fairly low out of the ten nations, with only Mexico and South Korea having lower average risk perception scores.

However, there was little difference between many of the countries, with risk perception generally high in all nations.

̽��ֱ��researchers also found that greater concern about the virus did indeed correlate with taking a number of preventative public health measures such as increased hand washing or wearing facemasks.

Men typically had lower levels of concern about the virus than women, despite the fact that, on average, COVID-19 appears to be considerably more dangerous to men if contracted.

̽��ֱ��significance of different psychological factors varied between countries. However, some attitudes and traits consistently indicated increased perception of risk in people across several countries.

For example, across all nations, those who suspected they had already contracted the virus perceived a higher risk from it. In several countries, people who got information on the virus from friends or family also perceived higher risk.

“Prosociality”, or a belief in the importance of doing things for the benefit of others, related to heightened concern about the virus in nine of the ten countries. In fact, it emerged as one of the most important psychological factors of risk perception internationally.

“Appealing to prosocial motives can be an important part of solving social dilemmas during pandemics,” said Dr Claudia Schneider, co-author of the study. “For example, ‘clap for our carers’ campaigns help us to publicly signal prosocial intentions through shared sentiment and the spread of positive emotions.”

By contrast, what the researchers term an “individualistic worldview” – inferred from a belief that governments meddle too much in our lives – related to lower levels of concern about the risks of coronavirus.

While this worldview is famously associated with certain US states, it was also significantly related to risk perception in several other countries, such as Germany, Sweden, Spain, Japan and the UK.

“ ̽��ֱ��perception that the government is restricting people’s freedom might cause psychological pushback among some people with strong individualistic worldviews,” said Dr Sarah Dryhurst, co-author of the study. “We see this expressed in anti-lockdown protests in the US and Germany, for example.”

Political ideology was less significant for risk perception overall, although a more conservative outlook was associated with lower levels of concern in the UK and the US.

“Governments are asking people to stay inside and give up their livelihoods in order to protect their societies. It’s important we understand how people react to the information and instructions they receive about the virus,” said Dr Alexandra Freeman, Director of the Winton Centre.

“We’ve made all our data publicly available to help institutions and journalists communicate better. We hope that this work can help the global effort to react appropriately to this threat,” she said.

Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, co-author and Chairman of the Winton Centre, added: "As we move towards relaxing the lockdown, it is important to understand both the overall levels of concern, and the variability between people in their attitudes to the virus and the counter-measures taken. This evidence suggests that different worldviews need to be taken into account."

How you can support Cambridge's COVID-19 research effort

Donate to support COVID-19 research at Cambridge

“Risk perception” among UK population greater than in nine other countries surveyed for latest research.

Appealing to prosocial motives can be an important part of solving social dilemmas during pandemics

Claudia Schneider

Yes

How different countries are reacting to the COVID-19 risk and their governments’ responses

fpjl2 — Tue, 24 Mar 2020 12:52:31 +0000

Researchers at the Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication spent the weekend surveying people's attitudes towards the risk of coronavirus, and their governments’ reactions.

Uncertainty about facts can be reported without damaging public trust in news – study

fpjl2 — Mon, 23 Mar 2020 16:33:08 +0000

̽��ֱ��numbers that drive headlines – those on Covid-19 infections, for example – contain significant levels of uncertainty: assumptions, limitations, extrapolations, and so on.

Experts and journalists have long assumed that revealing the 'noise' inherent in data confuses audiences and undermines trust, say ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge researchers, despite this being little studied.

Now, new research has found that uncertainty around key facts and figures can be communicated in a way that maintains public trust in information and its source, even on contentious issues such as immigration and climate change.

Researchers say they hope the work, funded by the Nuffield Foundation, will encourage scientists and media to be bolder in reporting statistical uncertainties.

“Estimated numbers with major uncertainties get reported as absolutes,” said Dr Anne Marthe van der Bles, who led the new study while at Cambridge’s Winton Centre for Risk and Evidence Communication.

“This can affect how the public views risk and human expertise, and it may produce negative sentiment if people end up feeling misled,” she said.

Co-author Sander van der Linden, director of the Cambridge Social Decision-Making Lab, said: “Increasing accuracy when reporting a number by including an indication of its uncertainty provides the public with better information. In an era of fake news that might help foster trust.”

̽��ֱ��team of psychologists and mathematicians set out to see if they could get people much closer to the statistical 'truth' in a news-style online report without denting perceived trustworthiness.

They conducted five experiments involving a total of 5,780 participants, including a unique field experiment hosted by BBC News online, which displayed the uncertainty around a headline figure in different ways.

̽��ֱ��researchers got the best results when a figure was flagged as an estimate, and accompanied by the numerical range from which it had been derived, for example: '…the unemployment rate rose to an estimated 3.9% (between 3.7%–4.1%)'.

This format saw a marked increase in the feeling and understanding that the data held uncertainty, but little to no negative effect on levels of trust in the data itself, those who provided it (e.g. civil servants) or those reporting it (e.g. journalists).

“We hope these results help to reassure all communicators of facts and science that they can be more open and transparent about the limits of human knowledge,” said co-author Prof Sir David Spiegelhalter, Chair of the Winton Centre at the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Catherine Dennison, Welfare Programme Head at the Nuffield Foundation, said: “We are committed to building trust in evidence at a time when it is frequently called into question. This study provides helpful guidance on ensuring informative statistics are credibly communicated to the public.”

̽��ֱ��findings are published today in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Most experiment participants were recruited through the online crowdsourcing platform Prolific. They were given short, news-style texts on one of four topics: UK unemployment, UK immigration, Indian tiger populations, or climate change.

Uncertainty was presented as a single added word (e.g. ‘estimated’), a numerical range, a longer verbal caveat – 'there is uncertainty around this figure: it could be somewhat higher or lower' – or combination of these, as well as the ‘control’ of a standalone figure without uncertainty, typical of most news reporting.

They found that the added word did not register with people, and the longer caveat registered but significantly diminished trust – the researchers believe it was too ambiguous. Presenting the numerical range (from minimum to maximum) had the right balance of signaling uncertainty with little evidence for loss of trust.

Prior views on contested topics within news reports, such as migration, were included in the analysis. Although attitudes towards the issue mattered for how facts were viewed, when openness about data uncertainty was added it did not substantially reduce trust in either the numbers or the source.

̽��ֱ��team worked with the BBC to conduct a field experiment in October 2019, when figures were released about the UK labour market.

In the BBC’s online story, figures were either presented as usual, a ‘control’, or with some uncertainty – a verbal caveat or a numerical range – and a link to a brief survey. Findings from this 'real world' experiment matched those from the study’s other 'lab conditions' experiments.

“We recommend that journalists and those producing data give people the fuller picture,” said co-author Dr Alexandra Freeman, Executive Director of the Winton Centre.

“If a number is an estimate, let them know how precise that estimate is by putting a minimum and maximum in brackets afterwards.”

Sander van der Linden added: “Ultimately we’d like to see the cultivation of psychological comfort around the fact that knowledge and data always contain uncertainty.”

“Disinformation often appears definitive, and fake news plays on a sense of certainty,” he said.

“One way to help people navigate today’s post-truth news environment is by being honest about what we don’t know, such as the exact number of confirmed coronavirus cases in the UK. Our work suggests people can handle the truth.”

Last month, David Spiegelhalter launched a podcast about statistics, ‘Risky Talk’. In the first episode he discusses communicating climate change data with Sander van der Linden and Dr Emily Shuckburgh, leader of the ̽��ֱ��’s new climate initiative Cambridge Zero.

How you can support Cambridge's COVID-19 research effort

Donate to support COVID-19 research at Cambridge

A series of experiments – including one on the BBC News website – finds the use of numerical ranges in news reports helps us grasp the uncertainty of stats while maintaining trust in data and its sources.

Ultimately we’d like to see the cultivation of psychological comfort around the fact that knowledge and data always contain uncertainty

Sander van der Linden

Yes