@piersmorgan Sir David Norgrove from the U.K. Stats Authority is not letting up in a follow up letter to the Minister of Magical Numbers, Matt Hancock.
Hancock, Cummings, Johnson, Gove & co think we are all mugs.
@jneill @vicderbyshire @EdConwaySky @SamCoatesSky @ChrisGiles_
Hancock, Cummings, Johnson, Gove & co think we are all mugs.
@jneill @vicderbyshire @EdConwaySky @SamCoatesSky @ChrisGiles_
The stats serve neither the function of helping to understand the epidemic showing the characteristics and numbers of the persons infected (eg, age, occupation, sex, ethnicity, distribution across the country so we, GPS, local public health can see WHERE the flare up are). 
I would say, to that end we need to know how many PEOPLE have tested positive, negative and also UNCLEAR given the unclears should be followed through super fast as the infection test window is closing fast.
They also can be a guide to other performance issues.
They also can be a guide to other performance issues.
Which takes us to the second purpose Sir David points out.
How effectively is the test programme being managed.
Unclears May give us a sense whether self swabbing v professional swabbing is better. It would have to be categorised accordingly.
Ditto different samples.
How effectively is the test programme being managed.
Unclears May give us a sense whether self swabbing v professional swabbing is better. It would have to be categorised accordingly.
Ditto different samples.
Data on delays.
How long from request to swabbing (either in person or swabs returned to test centre?
How many posted kits are never returned?
Delay in returns?
How quickly processed in lab
How quickly ALL key players notified - patient, GP, Local PH both pillars
How long from request to swabbing (either in person or swabs returned to test centre?
How many posted kits are never returned?
Delay in returns?
How quickly processed in lab
How quickly ALL key players notified - patient, GP, Local PH both pillars
ACTION ON POSITIVES to ensure isolation of self and contacts.
Rinse and repeat.
Sir David points out that the sliding of tests with posted kits gives a false impression of testing activity.
(Eliding serology and surveillance tests with diagnostic COVID tests is also unhelpful)
Rinse and repeat.
Sir David points out that the sliding of tests with posted kits gives a false impression of testing activity.
(Eliding serology and surveillance tests with diagnostic COVID tests is also unhelpful)
We still do not know how many of those posted kits are returned (when not, why not? Data)
Nor how fast ALL tests are processed so swabs are captured at the window when infection most likely to be captured and resulted for action.
Nor how fast ALL tests are processed so swabs are captured at the window when infection most likely to be captured and resulted for action.
Double testing of the same person to ee time and multiple tests on the same occasions should be clear.
The way tests are presented and elided give an artifially LOW sense of how many people have tested positive.
The way tests are presented and elided give an artifially LOW sense of how many people have tested positive.
He points out that it is difficult to understand much data without recourse to technical notes which are, themselves,hard to follow.
And he highlights the need to have data on follow through.
And he highlights the need to have data on follow through.
All the testing in the world is not much use if it isn’t effectively communicated and results in effective isolation of the infected and contacts in a small window of time.
And flag that treatment might be needed and support.
And flag that treatment might be needed and support.
