Read on Twitter
So universities are pressuring junior/newer staff to & #39;volunteer& #39; to conduct pre-Christmas testing on students. Sussex says & #39;no experience needed,& #39; for tasks such as advising students on test procedure, processing tests and recording results. https://thetab.com/uk/sussex/2020/11/19/no-experience-needed-sussex-staff-asked-to-covid-test-students-ahead-of-christmas-44859">https://thetab.com/uk/sussex... https://twitter.com/USSbriefs/status/1330056857604534273">https://twitter.com/USSbriefs...
So the dangerous and highly precise work of testing is going to be carried out by non-specialists, working long hours (9am-6pm) having only recieved a short online training course explaining their roles.
The first and most important objection to this is obviously the risk to staff - it is disgusting that universities are pressuring precarious workers to carry out a dangerous role they have not been recruited, trained or paid for.
The second problem is the effect this will have on test reliability. I recently had a coronavirus test, and they are extremely unpleasant to self-administer. Despite your best intentions, the reflex is to not push the swab deep enough into your nose and your throat.
Thankfully my test was supervised by a medical professional - so they told me to keep going and didnt let me shirk the test. Unsupervised tests, or tests supervised by someone who is not a trained specialist, will not have this safeguard.
This is a big problem, because tests are only as good as the sample you put in, and the quantity of viral material at the front of the nose or throat is much lower than that deeper back. This is a well reported problem with PCR testing.
& #39;Problems with sample collection are the main culprit behind inaccurate testing,& #39; which & #39;can happen because someone doesn’t insert a swab deep enough in the nose or doesn’t collect enough of the sample& #39; - Maureen Ferran, Rochester Institute of Technology https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-tests-are-pretty-accurate-but-far-from-perfect-136671">https://theconversation.com/coronavir...
So this is worrying enough if unis are going to use the gold standard PCR testing. But they arent. They are planning to use Lateral Flow Testing. LFTs are already not as good as PCR tests, but get much much worse when administered by non-specialists:
The fact that the Innova LFT may miss as many as half of Covid-19 cases led experts to label them as & #39;unsuitable for a “test and release” strategy to enable people to leave lockdown or to allow students to go home from university.& #39; https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4469">https://www.bmj.com/content/3...
Professor Jon Deeks; & #39;The poor detection rate of the test makes it entirely unsuitable... As the test may miss up to half of covid-19 cases, a negative test result indicates a reduced risk of infection but does not exclude covid-19.& #39; https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4469">https://www.bmj.com/content/3...
It& #39;s not just that the Innova test is bad, it& #39;s that all LFTs have this weakness; & #39;other lateral flow antigen tests are likely to outperform Innova, but even those do not have high enough sensitivity to rule out covid-19. The Innova test is certainly not fit... for this purpose& #39;
Great thread from @deeksj (Professor of Biostatistics at Birmingham) on the Lateral Flow Tests the government are using in all their release plans (e.g Unis).
& #39;Very conservative& #39; estimate is they will miss *at least 40%* of cases: https://twitter.com/deeksj/status/1331163101899726849?s=19">https://twitter.com/deeksj/st...
& #39;Very conservative& #39; estimate is they will miss *at least 40%* of cases: https://twitter.com/deeksj/status/1331163101899726849?s=19">https://twitter.com/deeksj/st...
