Scrutable

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:44 pm

Has anyone had a PCR Home testing kit recently?
How much of the 'liquid' was in the sample receiving tube?

At the start of the week I reported a slight ringing in my ears on the Covid Zoe app. Next day I got an email suggesting that although this isn't a 'red flag symptom' for Covid, they would like to invite me to take a PCR home test as part of their study.

This is the second time I've had one of these, the first being back in May (negative result).

The first time, I recall there being no more than about a cm of the liquid in the bottom of the tube; whereas this time the tube was about half full.

What's it been for others?

headshot wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:07 pm

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:44 pm

This is the second time I've had one of these, the first being back in May (negative result).
The first time, I recall there being no more than about a cm of the liquid in the bottom of the tube; whereas this time the tube was about half full.
What's it been for others?

About 1cm for the four I've done via Zoe.

Huh...ringing in the ears. I had that for a few weeks in late 2020, but didn't report it via Zoe.

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:03 pm

headshot wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:07 pm

Gfamily wrote: ↑

Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:44 pm

This is the second time I've had one of these, the first being back in May (negative result).
The first time, I recall there being no more than about a cm of the liquid in the bottom of the tube; whereas this time the tube was about half full.
What's it been for others?

About 1cm for the four I've done via Zoe.

Huh...ringing in the ears. I had that for a few weeks in late 2020, but didn't report it via Zoe.

I don't think it's a primary red flag for Covid, but I thought it worth reporting - the test came back negative anyway.

I have read someone describe ringing in the ears as a continuing side effect after recovering from a period with Covid

The bottom line is that I am sincerely and deeply sorry for the consequences of the choices we made. As a scientist, engineer and medical person, I believed we were using the very best that science had to offer. And I trusted that an immunity bubble was a “real thing”.

I no longer believe that.

In fact, further investigation into testing has revealed even more curious and concerning data. Once it was clear that I personally had contracted COVID-19 (which sucks as much as everyone says it does), I tested myself with Rapid PCR and Rapid Antigen every day, twice per day, for several consecutive days. I was flabbergasted that NONE of the tests turned up positive. I was consistently negative. Four days into my quarantine, I finally tested positive on a PCR “Spit Test” that measures viral load. I was told I was “highly infectious."

raven wrote: ↑

Thu Mar 11, 2021 11:49 pm

Maybe the logistics of getting the tests to school was awkward? Or the school didn't want lots of parents coming in?

Sister's school was initially saying you'd have to pick the LF tests up at a test centre, but then they said they'd do it at school I think. Idk if that's what happened; haven't spoken to her yet this week. (She's been doing twice weekly lateral flow tests at home for a while, 'cos she's on staff.)

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sun Apr 18, 2021 12:50 pm

the Guardian explains Bayes's theorem

To be fair, it should be taught to more people. I mention it in my masters' course.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:12 am

NHS website runs out of lateral flow Covid tests

Bird on a Fire wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 13, 2021 12:17 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:12 am

NHS website runs out of lateral flow Covid tests

I'm glad I had second thoughts and brought a few from Portugal now.

You just can't put your faith in anything run by the UK these days, especially pandemic related. What a shitshow.

shpalman wrote: ↑

Mon Dec 13, 2021 11:12 am

NHS website runs out of lateral flow Covid tests

jdc wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 3:49 pm

shpalman wrote: ↑

Sat Dec 05, 2020 12:25 pm

Government figures from the mass testing programme in Liverpool showed that the tests missed half of all positive cases detected by the standard coronavirus tests, and missed 30% of those with a high viral load

“They are a low-tech test, they can’t detect low levels of the virus. The World Health Organization has said: ‘Don’t use it for this purpose’, the manufacturer said: ‘Don’t use it for this purpose’”

Dr Susan Hopkins, the chief medical adviser to NHS test and trace, defended the use of the tests, saying they had picked up many cases of infection which would otherwise have been missed.

“What we are doing here is case detection. We are not saying people do not have the disease if their test is negative,”

I read this in the BMJ yesterday: https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4690

Pollock believes that the harms of testing have not been adequately considered. “Some people are getting false reassurance as the tests are not very accurate,” she said. “People were being told on the radio that if they got a negative test they could go about their business.” She added that, since she raised concerns, the FAQ page on the Liverpool council website has been updated to include information on false negatives, and it now says that a negative lateral flow test result does not constitute a “green pass.”

The following quote looks to me like it's suggesting that this initial stage shouldn't have involved telling people to crack on once they got a negative test but that future stages would:

Buchan said that Liverpool was pursuing “SMART” testing: systematic, meaningful asymptomatic repeated testing. This has three components: test to protect (where testing is accessible to the whole community but can focus on people at highest risk, such as care home visitors), test to release (to enable people to exit quarantine earlier), and test to enable (to allow a return to activities).

Buchan said they were just completing the pilot’s first phase, which was about making testing accessible to all members of the community. They are about to enter phase 2, which is about targeting areas of high need, such as care home visiting, and release from lockdown.

Some fairly damning quotes from Pollock and Peto in the BMJ piece too:

“The whole thing seems extraordinarily rushed and poorly thought through. It appears they are making it up as they go along, and they have marginalised experts who could have offered help, such as the National Screening Committee.”

An advocate of mass testing, Julian Peto, professor of epidemiology at the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, told The BMJ, “The pilot scheme in Liverpool has been ridiculous and an absurd way to go about mass testing. It’s missing those in the areas that are most affected.” He added, “They have been inundated with the worried well, and those in the most deprived areas are not coming forward.”

... an analysis of the press release, has shown that it was more successful than Liverpool’s scientists and public health teams had anticipated, after they compared Covid cases and outcomes in the region with other parts of England, according to the press release which we're copying and pasting out of and if we linked to the article that would only make it obvious.

Key workers saved 8,292 work days by taking the rapid tests instead of isolating. Of 34 Covid cases, only three were missed by LFTs.

… they told me not to bother doing a PCR or lateral flow for 90 days as the results can be flawed