Coronavirus: Test website closes after 'significant demand' – Am I missing something here?

If I understand correctly,the test being offered shows that you are not infected – not that you have been infected but have now recovered. So we test all these key workers and its good news they don't have the virus – but whos to say they did not become infected afew seconds after taking the test? I can see the point of testing people with symptoms to see if it is or is not Covid 19, I also understand that this may pick up asymptomatic carriers, which we could then ask to isolate to stop the spread.

Are these the only benefits of mass testing, or did I forget something?

I accept it over 30 years since I passed my BSc degree in Zoology, so my
microbiology and epidemiaolgy are a rusty, but I think the benefits of testing
everyone and allowing them straight back into the workforce is limited unless we regularly retest.

The theory is that those at the front line might be tested at intervals - which would enable some to return to work, and others to potentially be diagnosed when they are presymptomatic.

But theory and practice differ. HMG can't even be consistent as to whether the target that very few believe will be achieved is for 100,000 tests per day, or the capacity for 100,000 tests per day. Of course if you put a testing station on one of the smaller Orkney Islands it might have lots of capacity and thence contribute to the latter type of target but it would do very little to get to X tests DONE per day.

For Orkney Islands substitute whatever place away from large numbers of population that you wish to choose. All I did was choose a location that is more ridiculous than some of the locations which people have had difficulty in accessing in large numbers to date.

Finally, the message seems to be getting put into action. Take the testing capacity to those who need tests, not vice versa.

As with any test I think we need to answers to several questions, the most important being: How will the test help ua achieve what we need to achieve?

I have still not heard a really for me convincing answer to this question. Just imagine that we were able to test every inhabitant of this country at 14.00 today. This would give us a picture of the situation at that moment in time. Then isfwe were to repeat the test again tomorrow at the same time almost certainly we would see a different result. And a week later almost certainly yet a different result. How would this help us resolve the lockdown situation and enable us to get our economy going again?

I am not suggesting that we should not test. What I am suggesting is that we need to be very sure what we are testing for and how the information gained will help us to return our society to some semblance of normality. As already said, I have not yet heard an answer that convinces me those pushing for testing really know how the information will benefit you and me.

Testing may help identify hot spots and the usual analysis for treatment etc, assuming that those who use a home kit also report a positive test - but can;t afford to stay at home!     I can only see those stats helping decide that the NHS can cope and that, AFAIR is the main reason for lockdown.
​​​​​​​

Only those for whom Covid-19 could be an occupational risk would have the obligation (COSHH & RIDDOR) you perceive - it would not be for every employer. In those employments it is generally a term of contract that the employer is made aware of any test result that may impact upon the undertaking.

If my employer wanted testing and to know the result they will need to write a new policy and add it to the contract of employment as I am under no obligation to submit to a test nor to provide them with a result.

Even our current draconioan Drugs and Alcohol Policy cannot force me to submit to a test (although it does state refusal will be construed as a positive result).

I have lost track of what test is which. The briefings by ministers are solely about numbers: they set a target and insist that it be reached whether or not it is relevant. Peter Gotch’s comments about testing on the Orkneys rings true.

The mainstream media are also fairly useless at describing which test is which. As we are all inlock down, perhaps, we could all learn a bit more about molecular biology and immunology. Based on what I have gleaned there are the following tests about:

1. The RT-PCR test for the virus. To do this test you take a swab from the back of the throat/nose and transfer it into a tube containing some sort of travel media. The media preserves any virus until it reaches the lab. The test has to be administered by trained personnel since you cannot rely on someone sticking the swab up their nose until it tickles the back of the throat-which is where the virus lives. It is then sent away for testing in lab using some method that first converts the viral RNA to DNA then amplifies a section it and then visualises it. This is usually done in a lab.
2. It might be possible to test for the virus using an immunological test that reacts to an antigen on the virus particles. Such a test does not need to be done in a lab but could be done immediately the swab has been taken using some sort of lateral flow device ( which is bit like pregnancy test kit)
3. They are also looking for an antibody test- this detects the antibodies that the immune system produces in reaction to the infection, rather than the virus itself. It is usually carried out on a blood sample- a drop of blood should be enough. It may indicate if people have been exposed to the virus and have developed an immunity to the virus but nobody is really sure.

Because we are in a crisis, scientists who would normally be cautious about the science, are being asked to give YES or NO answers to questions which they would normally ponder for years. I suspect that we will take some wrong turns because of this.

Originally Posted by: peterhosie

Originally Posted by: biker1

Matt Hancock is adamant that we will reach 100,000 tests a day by the end of the month......When it doesn't, can we look forward to his resignation?

Sorry but I'm not sure if 'looking forward to someone's resignation' on something that may or may not happen is really appropriate for a H&S forum!

Strange call out. As can be widely seen in the press and also these forums we are all desparately scrabbling for directon and information during this pandemic. If someone chooses to make such a bold statement of such an absolute nature why shouldn't they be held to account should "they" fail to deliver?

As H&S professionals when our contract relies upon a year upon year decrease in recorded incidents and the opposite happens would we expect to remain employed (as we are not politicians we tend to be a bit more honorbale and resign)?