The 1st 2 weeks of school testing did find MORE FALSE POSITIVES than TRUE POSITIVES - data are finally public.

Proportion false were 62% and 55% in these 2 weeks. Of 2304 positive tests, 1353 were likely false, with 1 positive per 6900 tests done.
Remember that the law made kids, teachers, families and bubbles had to isolate for 10 days even when the PCR came back negative, despite the @RoyalStatSoc spending days trying to explain the issues to @DHSCgovuk.

Never ever say tests don't do harm.
To be clear as some still can't see the problem. 2 weeks testing in every school only found 954 true cases. To find each one used 6884 tests (cost £144,564) and 1.4 false negatives were put into unnecessary isolation with bubble and family- 500 person days if a bubble affected 36
Thats £138M to find less than 1000 cases, and probably around 675,000 person days of avoidable isolation. Plus all the inconvenience schools were put through.

I seriously can't fathom how anybody can argue that this is a sensible way to run a testing programme.
Of course "false negative" in that tweet should be "false positive".

• • •

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

Keep Current with Jon Deeks 💙

Jon Deeks 💙 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!

PDF

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 @deeksj

28 Apr
Well here is some real data from 27 health care workers who picked up symptomatic Covid-19 infections whilst being tested twice weekly using RT-PCR. The paper develops models to look at impact of testing frequency, but also hypotheses on LFT performance
bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.11…
There is excellent presentation of the original data in the paper, as well as results from the models. Kudos to the authors.

Plots of Ct values from PCR are provided, which show that RT-PCR with Ct<37 had a peak sensitivity for detecting infection of 77% 4 days after infection.
No LFTs were used in the study, but the paper considered test results with Ct<28 and Ct<25 as illustrations of how LFTs might perform. At Ct<28 the red spots are +ve LFT results, the black are -ve LFT results, peak sensitivity is 64% at 4.3 days post infection.
Read 5 tweets
17 Apr
For the sake of clear Public Health messages, listening to this interview on @theJeremyVine I'm tweeting some responses to the claims made by Peto

#1 "the lateral flow test has the remarkable ability of only picking up people who are likely to be infectious, or other words a danger to others."
It doesn't just pick out ONLY infectious people
It doesn't pick out ALL infectious people
Linkage to infectiousness is unclear.

It can only gives +ve results when viral loads are high (a limitation not an ability). Studies show viable virus in many people with low viral loads.
Read 19 tweets
15 Apr
Senior staff at Department of Health have concerns that Mass Testing needs to stop ...

Great article from @JoshHalliday

Rapid Covid testing in England may be scaled back over false positives theguardian.com/world/2021/apr…
From leaked emails ....

Ben Dyson, an executive director of strategy at the health department and one of Matt Hancock’s advisers, stressed the “fairly urgent need for decisions” on “the point at which we stop offering asymptomatic testing”.
“As of today, someone who gets a positive LFD result in (say) London has at best a 25% chance of it being a true positive, but if it is a self-reported test potentially as low as 10% (on an optimistic assumption about specificity) or as low as 2% (on a more pessimistic assumption
Read 6 tweets
9 Apr
Take note - @dhscgov rapid tests are being sent out (certainly in schools) with two different (and conflicting) information sheets, one in the box and one given out separately.

(the crumpled one with the picture is in the box, the glossy one is handed out separately).

1/10
The clue to which one is most up to date is on the back page (the one in the box is the out of date version).

2/10
The important difference in on page 2, which has far more info in the box (1st) version than the version given out about who should use the test and what they should do.

3/10
Read 11 tweets
6 Apr
@drdavideyre isn't the 89.5% figure based on the samples in symptomatic index cases taken at the test-and-trace centre? So this shows how good the test works in those who attend test-and-trace with symptoms? Pretty good idea to use them there.
Using this test (or better ones) backed with PCR in test-and-trace centres could revolutionize contact tracing- if people get their results and meet with an infection control team before they leave the centre we will be moving everything forward 3 days. Add in financial help too.
But how well they work in mass testing or contacts will depend on the distribution of viral loads in these groups - which I cannot see that you have any data on in this paper. The Cochrane review showed sensitivity much lower in those without symptoms.

cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.10…
Read 5 tweets
30 Mar
Important paper in @bmj_latest from global leaders in test evaluation. Hope will improve quality of studies.
1/n

Guidance for the design and reporting of studies evaluating the clinical performance of tests for present or past SARS-CoV-2 infection bmj.com/content/372/bm…
Thanks to @JennyDoust @KatyJLBell @leeflang_m
@jacdinnes @SallyJLord @SueMallett Janneke van de Wijgert, Sverre Sandberg, Khosrow Adeli,@pmmbossuyt Andrea Horvath for working on this with me. Its a team which covers all important aspects of test evaluation.

2/n
From reading @DHSCgovuk @PHE_uk study reports and many others from organisations around the world, we are aware that the level of understanding about clinical test evaluation studies is often less than ideal.

This paper lays out clear steps to help improve.

3/n
Read 14 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!