Mass testing in Liverpool MISSED ~50% of infections and ~30% with high viral loads. Results are in this Government document, but no actual numbers or details are given.
Absolutely URGENT that @DHSCgovuk reports full data today and HALTS IMPLEMENTATION
gov.uk/government/pub…
Absolutely URGENT that @DHSCgovuk reports full data today and HALTS IMPLEMENTATION
gov.uk/government/pub…
This test is NOT FIT FOR PURPOSE for the Government's plans
It is totally unsafe to use these tests to decide somebody does not have COVID nor “infectious”.
If it were a drug surely this would warrant an immediate withdrawal from use.
It is totally unsafe to use these tests to decide somebody does not have COVID nor “infectious”.
If it were a drug surely this would warrant an immediate withdrawal from use.
Missing 30% with high viral loads is NOT SAFE. PHE studies said missed <5% - so this is more than 6 times as many.
You cannot risk people with high viral loads visiting their elderly relatives.
You cannot risk people with high viral loads visiting their elderly relatives.
A sensitivity of 50% means that somebody who has a negative result will have half the risk of having COVID.
PHE studies included a 58% result - but Matt Hancock denied this existed last week.
This is still a lot of risk.
PHE studies included a 58% result - but Matt Hancock denied this existed last week.
This is still a lot of risk.
PLEASE PLEASE @MattHancock @BorisJohnson @SMHopkins @didoharding @CMO_England
STOP USING THESE TESTS FOR PURPOSES WHICH PUT PEOPLE AT RISK. YOUR OWN DATA SAYS IT IS HIGH RISK. MANUFACTURER SAYS DON’T DO IT, WHO SAYS DON’T DO IT, SCIENTISTS SAY DON’T DO. IT IS A MISTAKE.
STOP USING THESE TESTS FOR PURPOSES WHICH PUT PEOPLE AT RISK. YOUR OWN DATA SAYS IT IS HIGH RISK. MANUFACTURER SAYS DON’T DO IT, WHO SAYS DON’T DO IT, SCIENTISTS SAY DON’T DO. IT IS A MISTAKE.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
