Hi - there was an article based on this paper published in the Telegraph in August. If you google Mayer and Baker it will come up. So it is in the public domain.
I have to confess that I initially understood the false positive thing as meaning that it was a percentage of people who had tested positive that could be false, not a percentage of the entire cohort that was tested. I wonder if other people think the same and therefore don't realise how very significant these numbers are?
I was similarly confused by the percentages for a while. As you say, it is easy to overlook their significance.
I have found it's 'official' link here:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gos-impact-of-false-positives-and-negatives-3-june-2020
Then the Welsh government have something similar here:
https://gov.wales/sites/default/files/publications/2020-07/core-principles-for-utilisation-of-rt-pcr-tests-for-detection-of-sars-cov-2.pdf
Curiously, this has "Not Welsh Government Policy" at the top of each page.
Some more references for you:
A report dated 8th (or 10th?) June here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895788/S0518_NERVTAG_paper_-_viral_dynamics_of_infectiousness.pdf
addresses the problem of false positives that was acknowledged by Sage in their 41st meeting on 11th June, minutes here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/895884/S0538_Forty-first_SAGE_meeting_on_Covid-19.pdf
They said:
Data indicate that people are infectious for up to 8-12 days after symptom onset. RT PCR testing may still detect virus after this point, but it is unlikely to be viable.
Irritatingly, it was not possible to search, for example, PCR because some of their meetings are bitmapped pdfs. OCR was necessary.
The minutes of their 45th meeting on the 2nd July are here:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/904684/S0596_Forty-fifth_SAGE_meeting_on_Covid-19.pdf
Their comment was:
26. PCR testing is highly sensitive and can identify presence of the virus long after an individual has ceased to be infectious. It is important to understand a PCR threshold level for infectiousness(as described in previous SAGE paper, 'Duration of Infectiousness', 8 June 2020, presented at SAGE#41)
It is becoming increasingly clear, to me anyway, that they have been well aware of the significant problems arising from dependence on PCR tests as a means of tracking covid-19.
Who in their right minds would promote it then?
Mike - I think the answer lies in the question - (clue 'right minds') 🙂
