Rapid coronavirus tests, which the UK has spent more than £ 600 million on, have been able to detect up to three per cent of people infected with the virus, a study shows.
The rapid test, which can yield results in 15 minutes and is widely used in the early stages of Operation Moonshot to screen asymptomatic people and slow the spread of the virus, is seen by officials as a new way of keeping things down. control and possibly even free people from self-isolation.
But the Birmingham trial apparently showed that the test returned two positive results out of 7. 189 people and that it possibly missed 60 positive ones.
The students received blows to the nose and trained staff, in this case science students, analyzed the sample. The same self-assessment procedure is used for asymptomatic people in the UK, especially in high-risk areas.
The question of whether speed tests are a good idea has existed since the government started using them, and some experts are concerned that the tests are not accurate enough and give people a false sense of security.
The test results have varied a lot and show that the tests work best as inoculations by trained doctors and worse when people do them themselves.
Laboratory experiments in England with public health showed that the test successfully detected 77% of cases. The health department later lowered it to 'at least 50 per cent' after an actual test in Liverpool.
Students at the University of Birmingham received quick tests as part of a national campaign to help young people return to their families over the Christmas weekend.
To check how well the tests worked, the university experts tested some of the students with a PCR machine, which is the real test used by the government.
After considering about one in ten students in the trial (710 out of 7. 189), they found that six of them had tested negative and were actually infected.
Multiplying this by 10 to take into account the total size of the group suggests that up to 60 cases may have been missed, says Professor Jon Deeks, biostatistician at the university.
The two detected true positives thus accounted for only three percent of the 62 estimated positive results that would have been found with a better test.
While the results were not a perfect analysis of the test, Professor Deeks said they asked questions about how well it works, which certainly should have been answered before the health department spent so much money on it.
It bought at least 20 million tests from the US company, without allowing other companies to compete for the contract, citing 'extreme urgency'.
Professor Deeks said: 'More importantly, is it a safe use of a test? Is it an effective use of precious resources?
This shows how absolutely important it is that assessment is preceded by implementation - this is the only assessment done on students - all done after government implementation.
Failure to verify that a test is appropriate for the purpose for which it is to be applied is insane and dangerous.
The proposed low efficiency is not something we acknowledge, suggesting that a careful and thoughtful examination of the methodology used would be advisable.
In a pilot report, health department officials tried to claim success by writing, "These tests still work effectively and detect at least 50 percent of all PCR-positive people. "
The load of a man is one way to quantify the amount of virus they carry in their body. People with more people are usually considered more likely to infect others because they also lose more due to more access.
It can endanger vulnerable people and those in the communities in which they live, such as residents.