The Student Room Group

My year group has been sent home already

What a joke... my year is off tomorrow because the LFT's done today showed 4 positive cases and they have to contact trace.
It's ridiculous as people were only tested on Friday afternoon so those 4 people would have been negative. 2 days for 4 people to catch it? I bet that some of their original tests were false negatives, we didn't have a single case from September to December when rates were much higher.

One of the people got a positive result, went home and took 2 more of the same tests in which both came back negative, I bet that one is a false positive. But even if it is, that doesn't change the fact they have to stay off for another 2 weeks.
I did some calculation (with a lot of assumption) and between close contacts in lessons and at lunch around 50 people will be off school. Luckily I am not in classes with any of them and have never even heard of 2 of them but I feel for those who will have to be off before we've even got started.

People I've spoken to have started questioning testing and thinking about withdrawing their consent. I never consented in the first place but I'm glad I didn't now. It's clear the tests aren't fit for purpose.
Reply 1
The jury is certainly out if rapid tests can combat the rise in R rate associated with the return of schools. A negative test doesn’t mean that you’re not infected, rather that you are unlikely to be infectious at the time of the test. The false positive rate is very low and comparable with PCR testing. Of course the endeavour is not helped by people opting out, spreading misinformation and failing to see the greater good if they are inconvenienced in any way.
Reply 2
Original post by Zarek
The jury is certainly out if rapid tests can combat the rise in R rate associated with the return of schools. A negative test doesn’t mean that you’re not infected, rather that you are unlikely to be infectious at the time of the test. The false positive rate is very low and comparable with PCR testing. Of course the endeavour is not helped by people opting out, spreading misinformation and failing to see the greater good if they are inconvenienced in any way.

"Scottish universities and colleges tested students from 30 November to 13 December, conducting a total of 43 925 lateral flow tests across all test sites.2 Of these, 79 (0.2%) were positive, although preliminary analysis of 31 of these positive samples showed that only 13 were positive on PCR testing, giving a false positive rate of 58%."
and "Annex B says “The virus prevalence is around 1% in the country, so we expect around 7 true positives and 4 false positives for every 1000 people tested.”" - from Liverpool testing.

False positives are an issue, and false negatives too.
"Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at Birmingham and leader of the Cochrane Collaboration’s covid-19 test evaluation activities, explained the results. “We found two positives in 7189 students, which scales up to 30 per 100 000 and was shocking in itself, as Birmingham has a rate of 250 cases per 100 000,” he said. “These results are especially worrying for schools: the government should not be proceeding with plans for schools testing until they have a proper evaluation of the test.”

Using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, the team retested 10% of the samples that had been negative with the Innova test and found six false negative cases, raising the rate to 60 per 100 000.

Deeks said on Twitter, “We thus estimate that we found 2 cases and will have missed 60 (because we only double tested 10%). We estimate the true prevalence to be 0.86% (95% [confidence interval] 0.40% to 1.86%) which is much more credible than the 0.03% test positive rate. Our estimate of overall sensitivity is 3.2%.”"

I proudly opt out. People are luckily free to do so. I don't want to contribute to a system that is not fit for purpose- I don't agree with it.
And actually I think the government is highly accountable for misinformation. People do not know how to interpret numbers. Yesterday for example there were 4712 cases out of 1.5 million people tested. That is a very small number, but will be viewed as high by the general public. They spread propaganda-like messages on social media platforms:

shorturl.at/mvzJT
"Look me in the eyes" and tell me that advert is not only exaggerated but scaremongering to a young audience on tiktok. The advert is laughable and compares COVID to something like ebola.

What is this "Greater good" you speak of? For the 16 million people who have been vaccinated, which reduces the risk of the most vulnerable being hospitalized by 80%? 4 people off after being tested 2 days ago is ridiculous, does show there is issues with the tests and will affect at least 50 students in this single instance whos education and future matters, perhaps even more than the lives we are being told we are protecting.

Sources
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4744 (Liverpool)
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4744/rr
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4941 (Birmingham and scottish uni statement)
https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/vaccination-reduces-covid-19-hospital-admissions-nihr-study-suggests/27032
Reply 3
Original post by linedpaper
"Scottish universities and colleges tested students from 30 November to 13 December, conducting a total of 43 925 lateral flow tests across all test sites.2 Of these, 79 (0.2%) were positive, although preliminary analysis of 31 of these positive samples showed that only 13 were positive on PCR testing, giving a false positive rate of 58%."
and "Annex B says “The virus prevalence is around 1% in the country, so we expect around 7 true positives and 4 false positives for every 1000 people tested.”" - from Liverpool testing.

False positives are an issue, and false negatives too.
"Jon Deeks, professor of biostatistics at Birmingham and leader of the Cochrane Collaboration’s covid-19 test evaluation activities, explained the results. “We found two positives in 7189 students, which scales up to 30 per 100 000 and was shocking in itself, as Birmingham has a rate of 250 cases per 100 000,” he said. “These results are especially worrying for schools: the government should not be proceeding with plans for schools testing until they have a proper evaluation of the test.”

Using polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, the team retested 10% of the samples that had been negative with the Innova test and found six false negative cases, raising the rate to 60 per 100 000.

Deeks said on Twitter, “We thus estimate that we found 2 cases and will have missed 60 (because we only double tested 10%). We estimate the true prevalence to be 0.86% (95% [confidence interval] 0.40% to 1.86%) which is much more credible than the 0.03% test positive rate. Our estimate of overall sensitivity is 3.2%.”"

I proudly opt out. People are luckily free to do so. I don't want to contribute to a system that is not fit for purpose- I don't agree with it.
And actually I think the government is highly accountable for misinformation. People do not know how to interpret numbers. Yesterday for example there were 4712 cases out of 1.5 million people tested. That is a very small number, but will be viewed as high by the general public. They spread propaganda-like messages on social media platforms:

shorturl.at/mvzJT
"Look me in the eyes" and tell me that advert is not only exaggerated but scaremongering to a young audience on tiktok. The advert is laughable and compares COVID to something like ebola.

What is this "Greater good" you speak of? For the 16 million people who have been vaccinated, which reduces the risk of the most vulnerable being hospitalized by 80%? 4 people off after being tested 2 days ago is ridiculous, does show there is issues with the tests and will affect at least 50 students in this single instance whos education and future matters, perhaps even more than the lives we are being told we are protecting.

Sources
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4744 (Liverpool)
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4744/rr
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4941 (Birmingham and scottish uni statement)
https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/vaccination-reduces-covid-19-hospital-admissions-nihr-study-suggests/27032


Dr Susan Hopkins believes they are a useful tool and worth a try. There are still plenty of people unvaccinated currently.
Reply 4
Original post by Zarek
Dr Susan Hopkins believes they are a useful tool and worth a try. There are still plenty of people unvaccinated currently.

Well one of the people has got a PCR test, it's negative. False positive then, considering the PCR are "gold standard"
Reply 5
Original post by linedpaper
Well one of the people has got a PCR test, it's negative. False positive then, considering the PCR are "gold standard"


Can they identify people that are infectious, yes. Is the false positive rate low and the same level as for PCR testing, yes. Can rising infection rate still set recovery plans back, yes. All you really need to know to give it a try also bearing in mind the government has spent a fortune in tax payers money on this.
Reply 6
Original post by Zarek
Can they identify people that are infectious, yes. Is the false positive rate low and the same level as for PCR testing, yes. Can rising infection rate still set recovery plans back, yes. All you really need to know to give it a try also bearing in mind the government has spent a fortune in tax payers money on this.

Update: 3/4 of the positive lateral flow cases took PCR tests, the "gold standard" and all came back negative.
The government spent a fortune because they over-ordered tests that aren't that good. Their way to get rid of them so they dumped them on schools.
In Liverpool Annex B states virus prevalence is about 1% in the country so they expect 7 true positive and 4 false positive every 1000 tests.

No it hasn't failed, the testing has
Reply 7
Original post by linedpaper
No it hasn't failed, the testing has


A robust evaluation of the evidence, rather than science on Twitter, puts the false positive rate at 0.3% comparable to PCR testing. The poorer false negative rate has been acknowledged, is partly mitigated by regular testing and in any event finding anyone asymptotic is a benefit. The gripe that the false positive rate is equivalent to the genuine positive rate makes no sense, so what when the genuine positive rate has brought normality to a standstill and anything to reduce it is a good thing. In truth I think it would be prudent to offer and take account of confirmatory PCR testing too. Hope you’re up for the vaccine when the time comes.
Reply 8
Original post by Zarek
A robust evaluation of the evidence, rather than science on Twitter, puts the false positive rate at 0.3% comparable to PCR testing. The poorer false negative rate has been acknowledged, is partly mitigated by regular testing and in any event finding anyone asymptotic is a benefit. The gripe that the false positive rate is equivalent to the genuine positive rate makes no sense, so what when the genuine positive rate has brought normality to a standstill and anything to reduce it is a good thing. In truth I think it would be prudent to offer and take account of confirmatory PCR testing too. Hope you’re up for the vaccine when the time comes.

My science is not from Twitter. Not every skeptic (note not denier) finds their figures on science. I regularly read BMJ articles and papers, which are peer reviewed.

I did not say the false positive rate is equivalent to the real positive rate but it is worrying and the tests as a whole aren't fit for purpose if they can't pick up cases. I recognize the usefulness of being able to identify asymptomatic "cases" though. I know that 3/4 people got a negative PCR test which is supposedly the gold standard but the original test result stands unless the lateral flow test was done at home and then they got a negative PCR. The protocol is ridiculous.

The vaccine is a personal decision that I will make when offered, I sway towards no but it depends what freedoms may be/are (wrongly) taken away if you choose not to.
Reply 9
Original post by linedpaper
My science is not from Twitter. Not every skeptic (note not denier) finds their figures on science. I regularly read BMJ articles and papers, which are peer reviewed.

I did not say the false positive rate is equivalent to the real positive rate but it is worrying and the tests as a whole aren't fit for purpose if they can't pick up cases. I recognize the usefulness of being able to identify asymptomatic "cases" though. I know that 3/4 people got a negative PCR test which is supposedly the gold standard but the original test result stands unless the lateral flow test was done at home and then they got a negative PCR. The protocol is ridiculous.

The vaccine is a personal decision that I will make when offered, I sway towards no but it depends what freedoms may be/are (wrongly) taken away if you choose not to.

The robust evaluation of false positive rate is 0.3%. 3/4 is anecdote not science. You’re right, to travel anywhere you’ll probably have to embrace both lateral flow testing and vaccination.
Original post by Zarek
The robust evaluation of false positive rate is 0.3%. 3/4 is anecdote not science. You’re right, to travel anywhere you’ll probably have to embrace both lateral flow testing and vaccination.

I do not care if the "robust" false positive rate is '0.3%'. There is no "robust" testing or evaluation- it has produced extremely varied false positive results in each study. 3/4 is my truth in my school in my area. It was probably a dodgy batch of tests.
From the available data, one in two of the positive results by LFT in Liverpool will be “false positives”
Scottish universities and colleges tested students from 30 November to 13 December, conducting a total of 43 925 lateral flow tests across all test sites.2 Of these, 79 (0.2%) were positive, although preliminary analysis of 31 of these positive samples showed that only 13 were positive on PCR testing, giving a false positive rate of 58%.
Freedoms eroded for an exaggerated respiratory illness that has a mortality rate of less than 1% and gives most people mild illness and can leave some people with a post viral like syndrome, common with glandular fever? What has the world come to...
Reply 11
Original post by linedpaper
I do not care if the "robust" false positive rate is '0.3%'. There is no "robust" testing or evaluation- it has produced extremely varied false positive results in each study. 3/4 is my truth in my school in my area. It was probably a dodgy batch of tests.
From the available data, one in two of the positive results by LFT in Liverpool will be “false positives”
Scottish universities and colleges tested students from 30 November to 13 December, conducting a total of 43 925 lateral flow tests across all test sites.2 Of these, 79 (0.2%) were positive, although preliminary analysis of 31 of these positive samples showed that only 13 were positive on PCR testing, giving a false positive rate of 58%.
Freedoms eroded for an exaggerated respiratory illness that has a mortality rate of less than 1% and gives most people mild illness and can leave some people with a post viral like syndrome, common with glandular fever? What has the world come to...


The water can always be muddied by people that don’t believe in something. Strange though that the world has had a devastating impact from a mild respiratory illness
Original post by Zarek
The water can always be muddied by people that don’t believe in something. Strange though that the world has had a devastating impact from a mild respiratory illness

But it is a mild respiratory illness, and there is no denying it. The majority of those infected will only get mild symptoms. As with any disease those with more risk factors are more likely to have a worse experience and are more likely to die.

Quick Reply

Latest