Came across the UEFA Guidance on Euro 2020 Testing in Stadiums.

Is it up to scratch e.g., likely to be effective?

Short 🧵on the effectiveness of UEFA Euro 2020 event testing protocols..

uefa.com/uefaeuro-2020/…
For event testing to be most effective, you want to ensure swabbing quality & that people are testing as close as possible to the event (ideally within 12 hours but 24 hours is acceptable).

NB - Ensuring same-day event testing at a test-site is logistically challenging.
The current guidance states a self-administered swab for a rapid antigen test must be taken within 48 hours of stadium gates opening, and 'proof' of result given via text or email.

These tests can be self-administered (at home), or taken at an asymptomatic testing site.
The 48 hour window given increases the risk of the test failing to prevent entry to potential superspreaders if they test 48 hour before but become (more) infectious in that window before the match.
For me, the key benefit of allowing people to test-at-home is it gives the flexibility to enable the swab test to take place shortly before the event (on the day (within 12 hours)).
So it makes sense to opt for home-tests as they give you greater flexibility to time the swab well, even though swabbing quality might be reduced slightly compared to at an asymptomatic test site.
Other benefit of testing at a test-site is it gives greater confidence that test was taken, and result isn't being 'frauded' to game entry.
But, given home self-administered tests are accepted, which I expect most to do given the inconvenience of travelling to an ATS, it doesn't make much sense to continue with a 48-hour window.

Just make it a home test on the day (12h), or swabbing at a test site (36/48h).
This small change would much likely improve any potential effectiveness of the programme to keep infectious, and particularly potential superspreaders, out of the event.
Also seems in the rest of Europe, where matches with crowds also taking place, there is no option to test at a test site, with only self-reported rapid antigen testing done at home, again in a 48 hour time window.

Better if @UEFA @EURO2020 changed to on the day...

End

• • •

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

Keep Current with The Sharing Scientist

The Sharing Scientist 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 @ScienceShared

9 Jun
Really beginning to question the scientific integrity of those who state with certainty that the restrictive interventions they favour 'work' for net-PH benefit, while any attempts to actually study &/or optimise implementation of more focussed PH interventions are unethical.
Perhaps this Wikipedia page will help?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_redu….
Would also remind people that we have all been living through one local, national, and global 'experiment' over the past year, with a package of blunt interventions of completely unknown (cost)-effectiveness and many collateral (known and unknown) harms.
Read 5 tweets
9 Jun
Higher prevalence amongst children actually makes the argument to do these pilots stronger.

Swathes of lost education nationwide, and children/whole classrooms having to repeatedly isolate & not receiving normal school-based care/fun generally, carries significant harms.
If there is a way to reduce these harms without increasing transmission through daily testing of contacts, which modelling/logic suggests can work, then it is worth evaluating through (high-quality) pilots.
There are no easy answers here, and everything is trade-offs. But if every pilot and attempt to understand ways to improve the situation & reduce total harms now we are in the vaccination era results in outcries of unethical study, we are unlikely to get very far.
Read 9 tweets
8 Jun
All of the below can be true

1) LFDs can be a very useful PH tool
2) People in the testing industry make a lot of money
3) The tests aren't being used in a particularly (cost) effective/efficient programme
4) DHSC are not evaluating them anywhere near well enough..
5) Misinformation around (LFD) testing, promoted by prominent academics in the media and certain newspapers, has, and continues to, erode trust in testing and public health, impacting on uptake and therefore impeding pandemic responses.
6) Seemingly subtle differences in transmission control can have significant net health/societal benefit at certain key points of the epidemic (e.g., when R close to 1, and/or in a tight race between mass vaccination & reopening with VOCs circulating).
Read 5 tweets
7 Jun
Fellow researchers - Which 3 papers are most relevant/important to your current work?
Mine are

1) Single-molecule imaging of microRNA-mediated gene silencing in cells

biorxiv.org/content/10.110…
2) PANDORA-seq expands the repertoire of regulatory small RNAs by overcoming RNA modifications

nature.com/articles/s4155…

3) Phase Transitions in the Assembly and Function of Human miRISC

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29576456/
Read 4 tweets
7 Jun
The problem with models forecasting late into 2021/early 2022, with implications for challenging winter waves, etc, is that there is still evolutionary space for the virus to become more transmissible &/or acquire further (partial) vaccine resistance.
Therefore, these forecasts will soon become somewhat redundant imho.

The most optimal strategy is still to keep prevalence low with focussed and effective evidence-based interventions, balancing harms & not losing focus, & take each day, week, month as it comes...
Scenarios, not forecasting, obviously - sorry.

Read 5 tweets
5 Jun
The fine margins on this are just crazy. Note this is illustrative data, but (illustratively), R(t) dropping by 0.1 per day due to vaccination = no exit wave, while R(t) dropping by 0.05 per day = large exit wave.

I have written about the fine margins of R(t) and epidemic outcomes numerous times throughout the pandemic.

Many seem to forget, or haven't acknowledged, when evaluating the effectiveness of an intervention, such as symptomatic or asymptomatic, testing, it is not static...
A dynamic epidemic means sometimes an intervention, such as testing, can have a small effect on transmission, therefore seeming ineffective.

However, at certain phases in the epidemic, a reduction in R of eg. 0.005 can completely change the course of the pandemic...
Read 6 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!

:(