.

Quote Originally Posted by sinkov View Post
You can't get them 100% accurate BT, and actually a 0.4% false positive rate is quite low, certainly lower than the PCR test currently being used.
The queues of people seeking tests in Liverpool suggest the initial acceptability of this pilot is high, at least to some. Its ethical basis, however, looks shaky. The council claims, wrongly, that the test detects infectiousness and is accurate. In fact, if used alone it will lead to many incorrect results with potentially substantial consequences. The context for gaining consent has been tarnished by the enthusiasm of some local officials and politicians. In the case of schools, the programme has been culpably rushed: parents have had to respond unreasonably promptly to a request to opt out if they do not want their child screened.12

There is no protocol for this pilot in the public domain, let alone systems specification or ethical approval. The public has had no chance to contribute, as required by the UK standards for public involvement in research.13

Spending the equivalent of 77% of the NHS annual revenue budget on an unevaluated underdesigned national programme leading to a regressive, insufficiently supported intervention—in many cases for the wrong people—cannot be defended.

another pointless exercise - but anything to get those numbers up - more numbers for what is to the Vast majority of people - a pointless bug.


Despite claims by the city council that the Innova test is “very accurate with high sensitivity and specificity,it has not been evaluated in these conditions.





ready for a laugh....?




omg !


https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4436