An expert has laid into the government’s ‘beyond belief’ testing programme’

A test package
Support us and go ad-free

The government’s mass rollout of rapid result coronavirus tests is “dysfunctional” and “crazy”, an expert has said.

Dr Angela Raffle is honorary senior lecturer in community medicine at the University of Bristol Medical School. She’s argued the Test and Trace programme needs to be rebuilt to link with local health and social services. And she said that focus should be on where the risk is greatest.

Moreover, she warned that extensive use of lateral flow tests (which can return results in 30 minutes) when coronavirus prevalence was low was a waste of resources. And it could result in problems such as higher numbers of false positives. Raffle said the use of at-home rapid tests should be paused while more research information was collected through trials.

False positives

Her comments come amid reports that officials have raised concerns about the accuracy of the rapid tests.

The Guardian said it had seen emails which showed senior officials were considering rolling back large-scale asymptomatic testing. This was due to the number of false positives. Commenting on the reports, Raffle, who is also a consultant to the UK National Screening Programmes, said:

That’s a phenomenon that anybody who knows about this stuff has been predicting will happen.

Read on...

Support us and go ad-free

Once you start testing people who are at very low risk, then even a good test will throw up more false alarms than genuine positives

Raffle said adopting a “black and white” perspective on whether a test was good or bad was too narrow a view.

She added:

It all depends what’s your overall programme of testing? Who are you testing? Why? What information are you giving them?

How well is the test going to be conducted? How will you make sure they understand the result and the limitations of the result?

How will you support whatever action needs to happen next? How will you quality control the entire system? That seems to have been really lacking in the Government’s approach.

Lateral flow tests

Lateral flow device (LFD) tests do not need laboratory assessment. And they form an integral part of the government’s mass testing programme. People in England can have two rapid coronavirus tests per week. Kits are available free of charge at approved testing sites, pharmacies, and by post.

Tests have been deployed across the country for health workers, businesses, schools, at asymptomatic testing sites, and for at-home testing for the families of school pupils.

The government has previously defended the accuracy of the tests. It said that analysis showed LFDs have a specificity of at least 99.9% when used to test in the community.

Raffle said she found it “beyond belief” that lateral flow tests had been rolled out across various settings “without some really solid evaluation being done months and months ago to say… what really happens in a true life setting?”.

She added:

The idea that we should be making tests available to the general population to use themselves when we have no data at all on how well they perform when done by people who aren’t trained, to me it’s just crazy.

Poor adherence

Raffle noted that the World Health Organisation’s message in March last year was “test every suspected case”, adding:

They didn’t say test millions of low-risk people with a test that you haven’t evaluated in that context.

She pointed to a recent analysis of a rapid-result tests pilot in care homes in Liverpool. It found “poor” adherence and no impact on outbreaks.

Several factors linked to poor adherence, including:

  • Testing requirements adding to an already “excessive” work burden.
  • Being required to return to the workplace for tests during time off.
  • Concerns around accuracy.
  • The implications it could have on income and workload.

“It’s just really dysfunctional”, Raffle said.

Strong words

Downing Street defended the use of lateral flow tests. A No 10 spokesperson told reporters on 16 April:

Lateral flow tests have been rigorously evaluated and we believe that they are both accurate and incredibly useful in terms of being able to spot asymptomatic cases of the virus.

We know now this can be one in three people and it therefore allows us to identify possible contacts of those people and ultimately helps us to reduce the spread and the transmission of the virus.

Asked how she would characterise the government’s approach to the systems for delivering mass testing, Raffle said:

I would really say insane.

She listed a number of issues with the current approach. They include creating the temptation for people with symptoms to do a rapid test at home, which could be administered incorrectly. And there’s a lack of information on how well such tests are performed in the hands of ordinary people. The tests would be “useless” if the right subsequent actions weren’t followed, she added.

Raffle argued that while Test and Trace was “improving” it should be transformed to establish clear objectives. She said standards and measures should be achieved and published for each measure.

Some 4m LFD tests for coronavirus, or rapid tests, were conducted in England in the week up to 7 April, according to the latest Test and Trace figures.

Support us and go ad-free

We need your help to keep speaking the truth

Every story that you have come to us with; each injustice you have asked us to investigate; every campaign we have fought; each of your unheard voices we amplified; we do this for you. We are making a difference on your behalf.

Our fight is your fight. You’ve supported our collective struggle every time you gave us a like; and every time you shared our work across social media. Now we need you to support us with a monthly donation.

We have published nearly 2,000 articles and over 50 films in 2021. And we want to do this and more in 2022 but we don’t have enough money to go on at this pace. So, if you value our work and want us to continue then please join us and be part of The Canary family.

In return, you get:

* Advert free reading experience
* Quarterly group video call with the Editor-in-Chief
* Behind the scenes monthly e-newsletter
* 20% discount in our shop

Almost all of our spending goes to the people who make The Canary’s content. So your contribution directly supports our writers and enables us to continue to do what we do: speaking truth, powered by you. We have weathered many attempts to shut us down and silence our vital opposition to an increasingly fascist government and right-wing mainstream media.

With your help we can continue:

* Holding political and state power to account
* Advocating for the people the system marginalises
* Being a media outlet that upholds the highest standards
* Campaigning on the issues others won’t
* Putting your lives central to everything we do

We are a drop of truth in an ocean of deceit. But we can’t do this without your support. So please, can you help us continue the fight?

The Canary Support us
  • Show Comments
    1. Let’s assume the government is right, and lateral flow device tests have a specificity of 99.9%. That means 0.1%, or one in a thousand, false positives. I’m not a statistician, but with something like one in ten thousand in the UK currently infected, that seems to mean a lot more false positives than true positives from these tests.

    Leave a Reply

    Join the conversation

    Please read our comment moderation policy here.