Said it would be Monday, but actually the news broke this afternoon. So an early release from my tease …
Thanks for sharing your hopes about what it might be … I enjoyed many of them … but none were that close.
1/10
For me, positive news would be knowing
1) High quality tests are developed using the best expertise from industry and universities
2)Tests are evaluated in strong robust studies to work out whether they work in the real world for the purposes to which they are put
2/10
3) Study findings report the truth about whether they do more good than harm, and not spun for profit, popularity or reputation
4) Tests are developed to meet the greatest public health needs
5) Tests are affordable and available in the populations that need them most
3/10
This is something far fetched compared to the profiteering, politicised testing policies which we are encountering in the UK.
But compared to much of the world, at least we have access to tests (not that we seem to know which ones to buy and how best to use them).
4/10
So the good news is that a UK test manufacturing company is going to do exactly 1-5.
Mologics, backed by substantial funding from the Soros and Gates Foundations (together with others) is a leading part of a major new Social Enterprise named
“Global Access Health”
5/10
Mologics will no longer be a "for profit" company, but aim to produce the cheapest best lateral flow tests to meet public health needs.
I’ve always been impressed by Mologics approach to test evaluation – ensuring they are properly evaluated and results not overinterpreted
They have done and transparently reported some of the best studies of their tests I have seen from biomarker companies.
7/10
But now MAJOR KUDOS to Mark Davis and @joefitchett for taking the company away from the profiteering business model, and for the Foundations who have seen the importance of funding this.
8/10
So, I am sorry if you were expecting that the positive news would be for here in the UK.
But maybe the news that people in our country put their expertise out there for the best purposes ahead of any profit can make up for some of the meanness of the ODA cuts.
9/10
And I am sure that many will join in wishing Mologics, Mark Davis and @joefitchett well on this venture.
Participants were first tested with LFTs – 810 positive and 1736 negative. The investigators choose to test 217 of the 1736 negatives with PCR – that’s 1 in 8. This wasn’t a random sample as they were influenced by clinical characteristics as well as the test result.
2/9
The sensitivity / specificity calculation is based on all LFT+ves and 12.5% of LFT-ves as follows:
Results from the LIVERPOOL EVENT PILOTS have been published on line and in the media. Somehow I missed these coming out. cultureliverpool.co.uk/event-research…
No official report from @dhscgov as per normal.
Seems important evidence is being delayed once again.
1/7
The bottom line is that the events were safe.
Kudos to Liverpool PH Team.
But detail is interesting to see why they were safe.
2/7
First the infection rate in Liverpool was very low when the events were held
Negative LFTs required for entry. 5/13263 positive and excluded. Same-day PCR found 4 people positive who had attended with false negative LFTs. So 5/9 were picked up by LFT – 44% missed.
3/7
What do we known about ORIENT GENE used in the Daily Contact Testing Trial by the @educationgovuk and @DHSCgovuk?
There have been claims that this test is as good as others and has been reviewed by @MHRAgovuk for use in assisted testing. This is not right
1/10
The process does not make sense.
The MHRA never review products for assisted testing as they are professional use tests, which go through the self-certification process to get a CE-IVD mark.
MHRA doesn't go near this process.
2/n
In fact ORIENT GENE is not even on the MHRA register of products which is a requirement. You can check here - both for the product and manufacturer (sorry for the messy link).
Important to note that the MHRA see these tests as for detecting “Current Infection”. That is detecting active infection, but is bigger than checking whether people are infectious. It also includes people who are pre-infectious.
2/12
They give guidance on reference standards to detect this. There are challenges here in establishing scientifically valid clinical reference standards. RT-PCR is regarded as acceptable which is what most are using.
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