100% agree with that. The government's approach so far, and measures in the 10 year plan, place far too much emphasis on personalised prevention approaches.
These can be beneficial but won't work at the scale necessary to address the vast health inequalities

I've repressed my 2A and will never speak of it again.

Oh and the suggestion that everyone working in Neighbourhood Health can just be up-skilled in genomic counselling (literally an entire profession) is laughable!

Strong agree. I'm not convinced on a purely technical basis. Throw in the ethical implications and it's just a nightmare.

There's a brilliant lecture here youtu.be/TGzwZNEVl4k?... by Prof Claire Turnbull on the current substantial limitations.

4. I'm not aware of any strong evidence that knowledge of PGS risk prompts meaningful behaviour change. What papers have I have seen (thanks DFPH prep) tend to suggest minimal/no meaningful change in behaviour.

3. Taking breast cancer as an example. Polygenic scores account for only part of the 30% variability in risk arising from genetic factors. The majority is from env. factors. The result is the majority of disease cases will still occur in 'low genetic risk' groups who still need screening.
...

2. For newborn WGS specifically, from what I recall it currently performs worse in sens. and spec. than existing blood spot testing with all the added problems of screen positive/ disease indeterminate results and no clear answer for how these should be handled
...

I think there's an even bigger issue than a lack of follow up services in that:
1. Single gene variant (eg. in newborn screening) has a multitude of issues that limit predictivity from genotype to phenotype (ie. whether the disease is actually there) when used for screening
...

After the fifth mention of the 'new genomics population health service'...

To see our full list of recommendations, read our latest report, Rebuilding Public Health: Restoring the Foundations of Prevention. (4/4) www.bma.org.uk/what-we-do/p...

We're calling for better pay and conditions for the public health workforce, with action to tackle the shortage of public health specialists. And we're urging UK governments to protect the independent voice of public health, so specialists can speak out and advise freely. (3/4)

We're calling on UK governments to invest more in public health and ensure that funding keeps up with the needs of the population. Funding needs to be long-term, sustainable, and transparent, so public health teams can effectively plan and deliver services. (2/4)

Side tracking from recruitment equity but exam related. Coming across your 'Myers-Briggs = astrology for MBAs' comment whilst I was prepping for DFPH was a little moment of joy in an otherwise very dull and laborious few months!

I've also heard the number of posts has reverted back to 70ish instead of the 100-120ish in our years? If both are true it means a ~ 30:1 ratio this year! It's ridiculous really, the government says it wants to shift, the FPH says we have a 750 consultant shortfall, but we're turning people away.