I’m afraid I think it is worse than “not perfect” given the sheer number of non symptomatic screenings

The problem stems from the way they have set up counting of people tested, splicing together people from two distinct and very different cohorts.

I think it worse than before
1/ Routine screening of people with no symptoms and 2/ testing symptomatic are very different pools of people.

They should never have been mixed up.

I completely understand that when the datasets were set up originally repeat screenings were probably not in their minds.
But that is no reason to continue to embed a mess.

Especially as one group (repeat screening) could probably be filtered through a pooled testing pathway to filter out the negatives in an early triage.

So there is a FINANCIAL and also efficiency/ resources benefit.
But first you you have to disentangle to two strands so the base point data on positivity/negativity and unclears can be transparent and the pooled testing methodology can be validated at scale.

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh

Keep Current with Fionna O'Leary, 🕯

Fionna O'Leary, 🕯 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!


Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @fascinatorfun

17 Oct
Interesting paper from @martinmckee @ScienceShared and @Selinarajan

I did not realise, when I suggested it, that pooled testing for the routine “screening” cohort -eg care homes HCW (as opposed to the symptomatic testing cohort) was already in use in Germany, USA &++ countries
It is one of the reasons why I think there is an urgent need to separate out the cohorts in testing and positivity rates.

Partly to monitor positivity rates separately and partly to provide a gold standard base line to pilot pooled testing in a resource limited environment.
Once the positivity rates in the cohort gets too high it makes pooled testing less useful.

Several other suggestions here.
Read 5 tweets
17 Oct
@zamaanq47 @carolecadwalla In fact the AIQ contracts produced by Chris Wylie did have SCL as the other party
@zamaanq47 @carolecadwalla And, legally, from the particular doc Carol has produced here, AiQ is not named as a legal party to the agreement.

A name in a letter heading doesn’t do that.

Would be handy to send which companies signed the contract when.
@zamaanq47 @carolecadwalla This is the thread I did so long back when Wylie first produced the docs to DCMS.

There are photos of Somme of the key legal doc & emails inc.

Read 4 tweets
17 Oct
Hey! @Turloughc @ur_friend_papu

From the latest Brittany Kaiser data Dump (c p167)

This bit re Leave EU

Here is Julian Wheatland arranging dinner 19/11/15 for Farage/Barclay Brothers/ Simon Heffer et al.re the Leave EU launch

5 Hertford Street. Again ! Image
Link to archive

Several other little curiosities in there from a very shallow dive

Another Wheatland company linked into CA-AiQ and the Trump campaign (Sept 2015)
Read 4 tweets
17 Oct
This might interest you @WendySiegelman @brexit_sham to add to your company tree.

Hatton International Ltd is another Wheatland Company, and that link opens a doorway to several other companies

Letter heading Interesting too and the specific reference to Trump in the parties
Wheatland the sole shareholder ImageImageImage
Accounts 2015 (filed 2016)

Then 2018 ImageImage
Read 6 tweets
16 Oct
“COVID affects millions of people & their families around the world. It is not a rare disease and we need scalable, affordable, and equitable treatment solutions.

The @WHO SOLIDARITY trial has done the world a huge favour by producing clear, independent evidence”
If we fritter away precious money on ineffective treatments (and poorly validated tests) we will have less money overall to spend where it is proven to be effective.

Incredibly important when we have such massive numbers getting the virus.

@MartinLandray is right.
Please stop tweeting out the latest article on the latest superfast test etc until you are quite sure that there is substantial high quality INDEPENDENT validation across all groups. Negatives. Asymptomatics. Pauci-symptomatic as well as symptomatic. In large numbers.
Read 5 tweets
16 Oct
To try and relieve pressure, bosses at the University Hospitals Birmingham (UHB) they would be “closing the front door” of its 3 main hospitals to non-emergency patients for the first time as CV19 has stretched to ‘its limits’.

Fuck this Government
“Anyone who turns up and who has not been involved in an accident or does not have an emergency will not be treated. Instead patients will be told to see their GP, call NHS 111 or care for themselves.”
“The trust estimates this could affect up to 330 patients a day and help prevent long delays in patients stuck waiting in ambulances because the A&E departments are full. “ Image
Read 5 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!