Joe_ Public wrote: » Look, they ran trials of this Innova test in Liverpool and Birmingham last year and the results were dreadful. Up to 60% false positives as reported in the telegraph and elsewhere tallies with what was recorded in Liverpool so the emerging statistics are merely confirming what was hinted at initially and what scientists were warning against. So at what point does unreliability of these tests make them more of a hindrance than a benefit? And nobody ever said LFTs were 100% reliable so stop with the strawman, but some will quite obviously be more accurate than others so quite why they have to continue with this outfit, given what we have learned about them over the past year, just seems bizarre to me. Expect to see them issued another juicy contract extension any day now, if not already happened!
Aegir wrote: » 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.
Aegir wrote: » 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.
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?
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/
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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 >
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
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.
A Dub in Glasgo wrote: » Especially when this stuff happens. We know the Tories count tests given out as tests carried outhttps://twitter.com/PhantomPower14/status/1408394096209715204
Aegir wrote: » There are hundreds of different rapid flow tests in use, all over Europe and the rest of the world.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w2.vanillicon.com/v2/284f2526e18ff7e4c08066f9ed850ed0.svg)
