The UK response - Part II - read OP

25-06-2021 10:13am

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

I note you did not answer the UK data source so I went and had a look and needless to say you have totally got it wrong regards testing and positive cases

The positive case numbers are PCR positive test numbers therefore you can only percentage that against the PCR test total

23/06/21
16,135 positive cases from 373,878 PCR tests which gives a positivity rate of 4.3%

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/testing
https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/cases

Are all positive cases from PCR tests?

Edit; actually the answer was staring me in the face

Number of people with at least one positive COVID-19 test result, either lab-reported or rapid lateral flow test (England only), by specimen date. Positive rapid lateral flow test results can be confirmed with PCR tests taken within 72 hours. If the PCR test results are negative, these are not reported as cases.

so the 4.3% figure is wrong, unless I am missing something.

25-06-2021 10:17am

Christy42 wrote: »

Why are they random? Surely you test people with symptoms/contacts first? Or are those figures being held separate (I may have missed that in the conversation if so).

every school child takes two rapid tests per week. Surge testing also means door to door random testing of people in a certain area.

Christy42 · 25-06-2021 10:30am

Aegir wrote: »

every school child takes two rapid tests per week. Surge testing also means door to door random testing of people in a certain area.

So how many cases did were there in the UAE that day including testing of those more likely to have it (UAE being what I initially responded to)? Or where the figures presented in the last page or so only surge testing in each of the countries since they have been compared to each other. If they are not then comparisons are obviously meaningless.

25-06-2021 10:43am

Christy42 wrote: »

So how many cases did were there in the UAE that day including testing of those more likely to have it (UAE being what I initially responded to)? Or where the figures presented in the last page or so only surge testing in each of the countries since they have been compared to each other. If they are not then comparisons are obviously meaningless.

Ignore my post. I thought the discussion was about random testing the uk.

Bit cynical · 25-06-2021 10:44am

How the UK have fallen behind in reopening compared to other countries:

Get a move on UK!

A Dub in Glasgo · 25-06-2021 11:47am

Aegir wrote: »

Are all positive cases from PCR tests?

Edit; actually the answer was staring me in the face

so the 4.3% figure is wrong, unless I am missing something.

If you test positive using a lateral flow test, it is not counted until you get a confirmed positive PCR test so all the positive test results in the stats are PCR tests

25-06-2021 12:22pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

If you test positive using a lateral flow test, it is not counted until you get a confirmed positive PCR test so all the positive test results in the stats are PCR tests

I'm not sure that is the case, although it may vary from country to country.

I believe that in England, the case is included as a positive result, but if the subsequent PCR test comes back negative, then the total figure is adjusted down three days later.

EDIT: I just came across this. In true Civil Service fashion, they have managed to take something that should be relatively straight forward and make it as complex and intricate as it can be.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/whats-new

The way cases are reported in England has changed. Reported cases are sometimes removed if subsequent tests are negative. This happens when cases identified through a positive rapid lateral flow test are followed by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests within 3 days that are all negative. These cases are now being removed daily.

Because of this, the number of newly-reported cases may not be the same as the difference between the total number of reported cases from one day to the next. The number of newly-reported cases in England and the UK is adjusted to take this into account, but the numbers for regions and local authorities are not adjusted. This means that for regions and local authorities, this figure does not show the actual number of new cases reported on that date. For analysis of trends in cases within England, use the data on new cases by specimen date rather than report date. The new cases by specimen date are always adjusted for the whole time series to take account of any changes.

Wolf359f · 25-06-2021 12:30pm

Aegir wrote: »

I'm not sure that is the case, although it may vary from country to country.

I believe that in England, the case is included as a positive result, but if the subsequent PCR test comes back negative, then the total figure is adjusted down three days later.

EDIT: I just came across this. In true Civil Service fashion, they have managed to take something that should be relatively straight forward and make it as complex and intricate as it can be.

https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk/details/whats-new

Hence the reason for basing positivity off PCR tests and not any and all tests. There was talk about them counting all posted rapid tests as tests conducted, just to show a high testing figure long ago.

A Dub in Glasgo · 25-06-2021 1:20pm

Wolf359f wrote: »

Hence the reason for basing positivity off PCR tests and not any and all tests. There was talk about them counting all posted rapid tests as tests conducted, just to show a high testing figure long ago.

Especially when this stuff happens. We know the Tories count tests given out as tests carried out

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1408394096209715204

PopePalpatine · 25-06-2021 1:37pm

Ah here, don't tell me they're still having problems with spreadsheets.

Joe_ Public · 25-06-2021 1:49pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Especially when this stuff happens. We know the Tories count tests given out as tests carried out

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1408394096209715204

Is there anywhere else using those Innova rapid testing kits the UK are using? They're not approved in the EU, as far as I'm aware, and the authorities in the US turned them down and advised members of the public to either send the tests back unused or bin them. The UK are already in for £2-3bn with this crowd.

25-06-2021 2:42pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Is there anywhere else using those Innova rapid testing kits the UK are using? They're not approved in the EU, as far as I'm aware, and the authorities in the US turned them down and advised members of the public to either send the tests back unused or bin them. The UK are already in for £2-3bn with this crowd.

There are hundreds of different rapid flow tests in use, all over Europe and the rest of the world.

Joe_ Public · 25-06-2021 2:54pm

Aegir wrote: »

There are hundreds of different rapid flow tests in use, all over Europe and the rest of the world.

But what has that got to do with the question i asked? There are 100s of such tests across the globe, some of them achieving very high levels of accuracy and reliability by all accounts, but my specific query was about Innova. Where else are these being used outside of the Uk? The latest up to date figure is £3.2bn.

For this:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1405840106410463233?s=20

afatbollix · 25-06-2021 3:09pm

A Dub in Glasgo wrote: »

Especially when this stuff happens. We know the Tories count tests given out as tests carried out

https://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1408394096209715204

That's a none story. Basically, they are saying that 555 million lateral flow tests have not had the results sent to the government.

I do 3 of those a week, I'm not going to sit at home scanning them online when all so far have been negative and guess what no one else is doing it either. We have better things to be doing. Why does the government need to know the result of a negative test?

Have to say they work too, Picked up a friend that tested positive who is a teacher and had no symptoms, the PCR result also came back positive. She didn't go to the school on the Monday and that saved 30 kids from losing out on being in school for 2 weeks.

25-06-2021 3:21pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

But what has that got to do with the question i asked? There are 100s of such tests across the globe, some of them achieving very high levels of accuracy and reliability by all accounts, but my specific query was about Innova. Where else are these being used outside of the Uk? The latest up to date figure is £3.2bn.

For this:

https://twitter.com/Telegraph/status/1405840106410463233?s=20

what does it matter who else is using Innova? or is this another one of these Matt Hancocks dog once ate dog food made by a company that is owned by the cousin of some guy that works for Innova?

What matters is this >

afatbollix wrote: »

That's a none story. Basically, they are saying that 555 million lateral flow tests have not had the results sent to the government.

I do 3 of those a week, I'm not going to sit at home scanning them online when all so far have been negative and guess what no one else is doing it either. We have better things to be doing. Why does the government need to know the result of a negative test?

Have to say they work too, Picked up a friend that tested positive who is a teacher and had no symptoms, the PCR result also came back positive. She didn't go to the school on the Monday and that saved 30 kids from losing out on being in school for 2 weeks.

Joe_ Public · 25-06-2021 3:36pm

Aegir wrote: »

what does it matter who else is using Innova? or is this another one of these Matt Hancocks dog once ate dog food made by a company that is owned by the cousin of some guy that works for Innova?

What matters is this >

The FDA generally requires more than a sample of one when making its judgements and its assessment of the Innova tests was rather succinct. Throw them in the trash.

The UK government is being sued by one rapid flow test manufacturer after it was refused a license on the basis of not having a high enough accuracy rate (iirc it was in region of 70%) while over £3bn has been spaffed on Innova even though its accuracy was known to have reached as low as 58%. False positives, as reported by telegraph and elsewhere, are bracingly high and god knows how many false negative.

But hey, on your sample of one, it's 100% rip roaring success so carry on.

25-06-2021 3:47pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

The FDA generally requires more than a sample of one when making its judgements and its assessment of the Innova tests was rather succinct. Throw them in the trash.

The UK government is being sued by one rapid flow test manufacturer after it was refused a license on the basis of not having a high enough accuracy rate (iirc it was in region of 70%) while over £3bn has been spaffed on Innova even though its accuracy was known to have reached as low as 58%. False positives, as reported by telegraph and elsewhere, are bracingly high and god knows how many false negative.

But hey, on your sample of one, it's 100% rip roaring success so carry on.

and on your sample of one line from a newspaper, they are a complete failure.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/u-k-doubles-down-use-rapid-covid-test-after-fda-urged-users-to-throw-it-away

The FDA’s blunt warning to the public, however, to stop using the tests followed a Class I recall, the agency’s most serious category, voluntarily launched by Innova in late April.

The company had applied for a regulatory green light, but before its review was completed, FDA investigators found that the test had already been distributed to users in a number of states, through inspections of Innova’s California facilities.

And while the FDA did not say it was worried about the performance of the test itself, the agency also found that the labeling of the diagnostic, which comes in different versions, included claims that did not align with results seen in clinical studies—including an analysis conducted last November by researchers at the University of Oxford in the run-up to the U.K. Test and Trace efforts.

Joe_ Public · 25-06-2021 4:00pm

Aegir wrote: »

and on your sample of one line from a newspaper, they are a complete failure.

https://www.fiercebiotech.com/medtech/u-k-doubles-down-use-rapid-covid-test-after-fda-urged-users-to-throw-it-away

Why not just read the FDA judgement itself? It's pretty blunt in its assessment of these tests:

FDA Actions
The FDA has classified the recall of this test as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. The FDA also has issued a warning letter to Innova Medical Group, Inc.

Stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.

Destroy the tests by placing them in the trash.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/stop-using-innova-sars-cov-2-antigen-rapid-qualitative-test-fda-safety-communication

25-06-2021 4:20pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Why not just read the FDA judgement itself? It's pretty blunt in its assessment of these tests:

FDA Actions
The FDA has classified the recall of this test as a Class I recall, the most serious type of recall. The FDA also has issued a warning letter to Innova Medical Group, Inc.

Stop using the Innova SARS-CoV-2 Antigen Rapid Qualitative Test.

Destroy the tests by placing them in the trash.

https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/safety-communications/stop-using-innova-sars-cov-2-antigen-rapid-qualitative-test-fda-safety-communication

The FDA are saying that they were distributed before the FDA could give them approval, there are concerns with the labelling on the devices, their accuracy has not been established (presumably by the FDA) and there are issues around the distribution. None of this is relevant to the UK because the MHRA has given them approval, they are not distributed via the US and the labelling issue is not relevant as they are repackaged with NHS labelling.

The MHRA, as is their job, are reviewing the data from the FDA and making their own decision.

The FDA is questioning their use as a diagnostic tool, at no point has the UK used them for this purpose, they are indicative only and the NHS go to great lengths to make this very obvious.

the effectiveness of these tests applies to all antigen tests, none are as accurate as a proper PCR test and you will not find anyone that claims otherwise.

brickster69 · 25-06-2021 4:33pm

Fall in cases, deaths and people in hospital today

https://twitter.com/WorldCOVID19/status/1408443087106543622

Joe_ Public · 25-06-2021 5:14pm

Aegir wrote: »

The FDA are saying that they were distributed before the FDA could give them approval, there are concerns with the labelling on the devices, their accuracy has not been established (presumably by the FDA) and there are issues around the distribution. None of this is relevant to the UK because the MHRA has given them approval, they are not distributed via the US and the labelling issue is not relevant as they are repackaged with NHS labelling.

The MHRA, as is their job, are reviewing the data from the FDA and making their own decision.

The FDA is questioning their use as a diagnostic tool, at no point has the UK used them for this purpose, they are indicative only and the NHS go to great lengths to make this very obvious.

the effectiveness of these tests applies to all antigen tests, none are as accurate as a proper PCR test and you will not find anyone that claims otherwise.

They were making extravagant claims as to the effectiveness of their test and provided no data to back them up and the uk trials offered no further support. The accuracy had been assessed to be as low as 58%. Now we see that up to 60% of positive tests are coming out pcr negative. That's dismal results. How more reassured can anyone who tests negative using one of these kits actually be that they are covid free? How many school/work days are being lost through false positives?

Nobody talked about diagnostics or comparing with pcr so forget about that strawman. I'm sure LFT has an important role to play in the battle to get back to normal, but i think it would help too if you were distributing tests that weren't so unreliable. Tbh, that's a minimum I'd expect for £3.2bn (and counting), but perhaps

S.M.B. · 25-06-2021 5:25pm

I have yet to take one of these tests as I don't have much confidence in the results. Is anyone in the UK doing so twice per week or as recommended?

25-06-2021 5:41pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

They were making extravagant claims as to the effectiveness of their test and provided no data to back them up and the uk trials offered no further support. The accuracy had been assessed to be as low as 58%. Now we see that up to 60% of positive tests are coming out pcr negative. That's dismal results. How more reassured can anyone who tests negative using one of these kits actually be that they are covid free? How many school/work days are being lost through false positives?

Nobody talked about diagnostics or comparing with pcr so forget about that strawman. I'm sure LFT has an important role to play in the battle to get back to normal, but i think it would help too if you were distributing tests that weren't so unreliable. Tbh, that's a minimum I'd expect for £3.2bn (and counting), but perhaps

how many school days would be lost if an asymptomatic child infected their entire class as well as their teacher?

How much should it cost? should the government be paying nothing? Should it be doing nothing? what level of accuracy should you get for £3.2bn?

Is your problem with the government, the use of lateral flow tests or the £3.2bn?

25-06-2021 5:46pm

S.M.B. wrote: »

I have yet to take one of these tests as I don't have much confidence in the results. Is anyone in the UK doing so twice per week or as recommended?

A class mate of my niece tested positive using one, then positive from a PCT test.

Which meant my niece was pinged as a close contact. Her PCR was negative though, as her previous antigen tests had been.

Joe_ Public · 25-06-2021 6:00pm

Aegir wrote: »

how many school days would be lost if an asymptomatic child infected their entire class as well as their teacher?

How much should it cost? should the government be paying nothing? Should it be doing nothing? what level of accuracy should you get for £3.2bn?

Is your problem with the government, the use of lateral flow tests or the £3.2bn?

Maybe I'm crazy but i just believe that for £3.2bn it should be possible for any second rate government to come up with a test that is at least passably reliable. I personally would want nothing to do with a company that allegedly sent falsified data to another regulator in order to secure approval. I personally would have dropped any firm like a stone which produced the dismal set of results during uk trials last year and not doubled down and pumped more billions into it as this government did. Of all the test manufacturers or distributors, why so joined at the hip to this one? It's not even serco, not even british, yet claiming billions out of the covid war chest nonetheless, generally reserved, i thought, for home grown "entrepreneurs".

How many school days would be saved if they'd spent their money on one of the no doubt many tests that would do better than an "up to 60%" false positive rate?

25-06-2021 6:07pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

How many school days would be saved if they'd spent their money on one of the no doubt many tests that would do better than an "up to 60%" false positive rate?

Which ones?

This is just more of your usual negativity.

It’s like the Labour MP on BBC breakfast this morning trashing the government for their lack of clarity over the traffic light system, but when asked by Naga what he would do, blatantly changed the subject, three times.

It’s easy to point fingers and criticise, much harder to come up with an actual solution.

Joe_ Public · 25-06-2021 6:18pm

Aegir wrote: »

Which ones?

This is just more of your usual negativity.

It’s like the Labour MP on BBC breakfast this morning trashing the government for their lack of clarity over the traffic light system, but when asked by Naga what he would do, blatantly changed the subject, three times.

It’s easy to point fingers and criticise, much harder to come up with an actual solution.

Changing the subject? Traffic lights! That's good.

Solution available last year - ditch innova, don't give them extra billions for unreliable tests. Seek alternative source, including home grown options, and do deal. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me anyway.

Joe_ Public · 25-06-2021 6:28pm

Anyway, i don't think anyone's particularly interested in this subject anymore. After all, what's another couple of billion really matter among the oceans of money that have already been spaffed on test and trace and other misfiring covid ventures? But as to this particular business and the involvement of this curious US firm, Innova, this is definitely a piece worth reading if you have time and/or are interested. I've read the first 2 parts - of 4 - and it really is an outstanding work of investigative reporting and good to see the form isn't quite dead yet. And from a tory to boot!

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-innova-lateral-flow-tests-another-scandal-in-the-making-part-1/

25-06-2021 6:35pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Changing the subject? Traffic lights! That's good.

Solution available last year - ditch innova, don't give them extra billions for unreliable tests. Seek alternative source, including home grown options, and do deal. Doesn't seem like rocket science to me anyway.

I’m not sure if you get this

Lateral flow tests aren’t accurate. The very nature of them makes them unreliable. Oxford university, Porton Down and PHE assessed fifty different tests, only two made it past initial tests.

It isn’t as simple as “ditch innovation and use another” because the next one is likely to be just as inaccurate.

25-06-2021 6:42pm

Joe_ Public wrote: »

Anyway, i don't think anyone's particularly interested in this subject anymore. After all, what's another couple of billion really matter among the oceans of money that have already been spaffed on test and trace and other misfiring covid ventures? But as to this particular business and the involvement of this curious US firm, Innova, this is definitely a piece worth reading if you have time and/or are interested. I've read the first 2 parts - of 4 - and it really is an outstanding work of investigative reporting and good to see the form isn't quite dead yet. And from a tory to boot!

https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/the-innova-lateral-flow-tests-another-scandal-in-the-making-part-1/

Before you start hanging your hat on that website, you might want to check out their other articles, such as “Why BA refuse to deny pilots died from Covid jab” or the one by the same author claiming PCR testing is a scandal, Sage are part of a mass behavioral experiment and why her child should not wear a face mask.

It’s a loopers website to be honest.

The UK response - Part II - read OP

Comments