Up to a third of people who tested positive for Covid by PCR test were not contagious and did not need to self-isolate, a new study led by Oxford scientists suggests. The Telegraph has the story.
Up to a third of people who tested positive for coronavirus by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) tests were not contagious and did not need to self-isolate, a new study suggests.
Research led by academics from the University of Oxford found that many laboratories are setting the positivity bar very low, meaning they are picking up people who are “a danger to no one”.
PCR tests work by cycling swab samples through different temperatures to trigger replication, which releases a chemical showing that the virus is present.
The fewer cycles that are needed to detect the chemical, the greater the viral load and the more likely someone is infected.
There is no definitive cycle threshold level for positivity. However, a review by the University of Oxford found that 30 was a good cut-off, because the virus was unlikely to replicate after that – particularly in asymptomatic people. Other groups have suggested around 32 to 33.
However, Freedom of Information requests made by members of the public and compiled by the University of Oxford show that NHS trusts are using vastly different cut-off thresholds, with little regulation from the Government. Some are as low as 25, while others are as high as 45.
The figures also show that between 23% and 37% of people who were told they were positive had a cycle threshold value above 30. For one in 20, it was higher than 40.
Dr Tom Jefferson, co-author and an epidemiologist at the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, said: “We found that about one-third of people who isolated probably didn’t need to.
“PCR positivity means that you can tell people to isolate and ruin their lives basically, even though in a large proportion of these cases, they are not infectious.
“It’s absolute chaos. The whole regulation of these tests seems to be shambolic.” …
Prof Carl Heneghan, director of the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at the University of Oxford, said: “It’s deeply worrying. When you have more virus circulating in the community, the potential for contamination is greater. Studies have shown that people can be easily contaminated with a viral fragment.
“The problem is the panic of the pandemic meant that we developed policies at a speed we’ve never seen before and we haven’t looked at them to find out which are evidence-based.
“Accurately knowing who is infectious is incredibly important for people going about their daily lives, the economy, our social lives and our wellbeing. The impact on the economy is now coming home, and it is clear that we cannot afford to keep isolating people.
“It’s also clear that members of the public were worried about this and submitting sensible Freedom of Information requests, but were met with contradictory responses attempting to explain a system which is shambolic in terms of governance and regulation.”
The study will be published on the website of Collateral Global, a charity committed to researching the impact of Covid measures.
Worth reading in full, and find the study here.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Man of the ppl, Dr professor vice chancellor king of the world Chris Packham, the worlds greatest scientist!
Jeez Louise, seriously, an article about Chris Packham’s choice of hat?!
If I had a pub I’d call it The Cock and Bull, and there’d naturally be a picture of a cockerel and a bull outside.
Am I the only one homing in on the fantastically named The Pecker and Bush pub?
It goes without saying that if I owned a launderette I’d call it ‘Sit&Spin’. Rude not to.
In fairness any chance to mock the man who sees himself as the heir to Attenbore has to be taken with glee. Of course the fact that this jumped up trouble causer is wearing a £500 piece of headgear only confirms that for his childish mumblings the
BBCtaxpayers are paying ridiculous money.Well personally, I can hardly wait for the next riveting installment about which aftershave Chris favours and how much it sets him back. I’d be quite intrigued to know what his skin care routine involves as well, seeing as he looks nowhere near his age. You bring the wine and I’ll bring the snacks.
It’s just unusual to see an article about Mr Packham that has the comments section open for business, to be honest. Or is it just anything that Toby writes about him where we’re not allowed to comment…?
Apologies if there are alcohol-free beer enthusiasts among our number but I am suspicious of people who drink it
Revolting stuff.
Friday night is gallon night.
I just don’t see the point
Every night is vino night chez ToF, though as I’ve said before I am
also partial to locally brewed golden
ale.
Completely off topic now there is a beach wedding going on in front of us and not only is there an army of professional photographers and cameramen provided by the resort but most of the guests are sitting there filming instead of paying attention. I find people weird!
It’s the same at concerts. An artist you have paid a fortune to see, and they are playing all your favourites, yet you are distracted by the numpties holding up their phones recording it all. Why don’t they just enjoy the experience? Do they ever actually watch what they’ve filmed? I always think they are missing out.
One of the last concerts I went to before I got too grumpy was Ben Harper. You’d think his audience would be fairly reverential but I ended up having a row with people around me who kept chatting.
I did traumatise my tastebuds by trying an alcohol-free Becks when I was pregnant and it was so vile it was grapefruit and soda from that day forth. One of the things I don’t understand about alcohol-free drinks is that they’re the same price as the real stuff. Over here it’s 17 euros for a bottle of Gordon’s gin, but it’s also 17 euros for a bottle of sugary water with flavourings that has ‘Gordon’s’ on the label. Who in their right mind is going to buy this alcohol-free version for that money when they can just buy the tonic ( or mixer of choice ) for a tiny fraction of the price and just make do with that on it’s own? It’s mental, right? A glass of lemonade would be a few cents in comparison, stick some ice and a slice in it, there’s your alcohol-free beverage! People are strange.
Anyway, I’ve never liked gin because it tastes like old ladies’ perfume, as does tonic actually.
Alcohol-free “spirits” are plain weird if you ask me. At least alcohol-free beer hydrates you.
The hat still has its security tag affixed.
He must have stolen it.
On the salary he gets from the BBC he can afford it.
Anyone who drinks an alcohol-free beer whilst wearing a stupid hat that cost £520 from Prada (but about £5.20 at Primark) is a colossal plonker.
Perhaps it’s the Primark version.
Alcohol free beer has a nasty ‘dry’ taste, its the only way I can describe it. Drinking fake alcohol is like vegans eating fake meat. Why bother, when there are tasty alternatives available, if that’s your thing.
I think it lacks taste. In fact, it’s a bit like drinking decaf coffee or tea. To me they just taste like hot water. As if somebody poured some water from the boiled kettle and went, ”There’s your coffee/tea” and you’re meant to close your eyes and imagine you’re drinking an Americano/Rington’s brew. Tastes of nothing. I’m harking back to when I was preggers though, a dim and distant memory now, as I stay well away from that sort of kack these days, of course.
Same with skimmed milk – it’s just water with a smidgen of milk added – but people kid themselves they are drinking milk. Someone’s making a profit!
He probably thought it said Pravda.
Is Truth his thing though?
Biggest take from this is How TLF-ck can a Bush Hat be £520 !!
The cost of his nylon (i.e. fossil fuel based hat) is notable.
But just remember that his hat size is certainly greater than his IQ score.
Shows how stupid he really is: £500 plus for a hat = T*at.