Covid-19: Leading statistician slams UK’s reporting of swab tests as “travesty of science”
BMJ 2020; 369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m1664 (Published 27 April 2020) Cite this as: BMJ 2020;369:m1664Read our latest coverage of the coronavirus pandemic
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Dear Editor
I am saddened and irritated about the lack of clarity over Covid-19 testing. As of Wednesday 29th April any asymptomatic front line worker in England (including care workers, food distribution workers, journalists) has been able to get a test (https://self-referral.test-for-coronavirus.service.gov.uk/test-type). The rationale behind this is not clear - I have not been able to find any reference as to why this is a good plan or that there is any plan at all.
There may be a point to regularly testing some asymptomatic workers but only if as a part of the sort of organised plan outlined by the Imperial College team in their position paper number 16 (https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020...).
There also seems to be no official interpretation available to explain the relevance of positive or negative tests either on government websites or on communication of the results.
Again - this is sad and unless clarity is forthcoming seems to be a waste of resources. Even more importantly this lack of clarity leads to a lack of confidence in the systems we are being asked to interpret and implement. I wonder if targets had any part to play in the decision?
GRAHAM STIFF
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor
What is the backround rate, Pillar 4?
This is a really useful article and references.
Does the figure "the overall RCGP swabbing positivity for week 15 was 29.5%" taken from the link tell us this is asymptomatic volunteer prevalence or something else?
It confuses me as the number of new ''cases'' published presumably means those with symptoms. We would all like to know this as the tight control of information coming down (and rare is anything positive allowed to slip out) is one of the many frustrations.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Covid-19: Leading statistician slams UK’s reporting of swab tests as “travesty of science”
Dear Editor
Inferences about the evolution of the epidemic are essential for assessing the efficacy of mitigating manoeuvres, so Sheila Bird's caveats are timely and apposite. Unfortunately the politicians impaled themselves on a crude numerical target for the end of April. The confirmation by the PHE head of testing that the target had been met involved a generous view of the data. What hope then of an effective mitigating process when the data collection is faulty and the scientific view is somewhat more flexible than any peer review would permit? Or is this an unreasonable stricture?
Michael Sherratt
Competing interests: No competing interests