Jeez, can't believe I'm agreeing with Piers and reading the Mail!

br14 said:
He quotes the Imperial College study which has been debunked by.... Imperial College. He talks about antibody tests that are completely unproven. And he has no idea about how testing works.

To perform mass testing you need high performance machines capable of running the tests. You can buy all the test kits you want but if you don't have the machines they're useless. This is has also been the problem in the US. They had public sector labs that have equipment that at best can run 2000 tests a day and slowly at that. The US got the private sector involved and testing has risen exponentially. Other countries are the same. They did not expect a virus that could spread so quickly.

I wouldn't argue that testing in the UK is a disaster, probably because of a lack of preparedness and classic British bureaucracy on the part of Public Health England (we know best!), and it also appears they're unable or unwilling to get the private sector involved. But they're still doing 10,000 tests a day which is not too far away from other countries like France, Spain, Canada and the US. It would help if they were more honest about the real position - the officials are useless at obfuscation. It's transparent they're hiding the truth.

Germany used the private sector to produce millions of test kits and can run 50,000 tests a day - I imagine you have to buy their machines to run the tests.

Its not too early at ll to be apportioning blame
2000 NHS workers tested
Yesterday the PM said testing was the key to this
Last night the deputy chief medical officer (you know the people who give the expert advice) said testing was a ‘side show’
Its a frickin farce

But it's way too early to start apportioning blame or making assumptions about the efficacy of the British approach. We haven't reached the peak yet. Lets see how it pans out. Germany has been fortunate so far, but they haven't been using social distancing and have one of the oldest average ages in Europe, so things could change. All the testing in the world doesn't help once the spread can no longer be contained.
Click to expand...
 
br14 said:
He quotes the Imperial College study which has been debunked by.... Imperial College. He talks about antibody tests that are completely unproven. And he has no idea about how testing works.

To perform mass testing you need high performance machines capable of running the tests. You can buy all the test kits you want but if you don't have the machines they're useless. This is has also been the problem in the US. They had public sector labs that have equipment that at best can run 2000 tests a day and slowly at that. The US got the private sector involved and testing has risen exponentially. Other countries are the same. They did not expect a virus that could spread so quickly.

I wouldn't argue that testing in the UK is a disaster, probably because of a lack of preparedness and classic British bureaucracy on the part of Public Health England (we know best!), and it also appears they're unable or unwilling to get the private sector involved. But they're still doing 10,000 tests a day which is not too far away from other countries like France, Spain, Canada and the US. It would help if they were more honest about the real position - the officials are useless at obfuscation. It's transparent they're hiding the truth.

Germany used the private sector to produce millions of test kits and can run 50,000 tests a day - I imagine you have to buy their machines to run the tests.

But it's way too early to start apportioning blame or making assumptions about the efficacy of the British approach. We haven't reached the peak yet. Lets see how it pans out. Germany has been fortunate so far, but they haven't been using social distancing and have one of the oldest average ages in Europe, so things could change. All the testing in the world doesn't help once the spread can no longer be contained.
Click to expand...
Sorry but I disagree. The problems are due to the short term incompetence of the current government. Plus the massive lack of investment in the country and the health service over the last 10 years.
 
br14 said:
He quotes the Imperial College study which has been debunked by.... Imperial College. He talks about antibody tests that are completely unproven. And he has no idea about how testing works.

To perform mass testing you need high performance machines capable of running the tests. You can buy all the test kits you want but if you don't have the machines they're useless. This is has also been the problem in the US. They had public sector labs that have equipment that at best can run 2000 tests a day and slowly at that. The US got the private sector involved and testing has risen exponentially. Other countries are the same. They did not expect a virus that could spread so quickly.

I wouldn't argue that testing in the UK is a disaster, probably because of a lack of preparedness and classic British bureaucracy on the part of Public Health England (we know best!), and it also appears they're unable or unwilling to get the private sector involved. But they're still doing 10,000 tests a day which is not too far away from other countries like France, Spain, Canada and the US. It would help if they were more honest about the real position - the officials are useless at obfuscation. It's transparent they're hiding the truth.

Germany used the private sector to produce millions of test kits and can run 50,000 tests a day - I imagine you have to buy their machines to run the tests.

But it's way too early to start apportioning blame or making assumptions about the efficacy of the British approach. We haven't reached the peak yet. Lets see how it pans out. Germany has been fortunate so far, but they haven't been using social distancing and have one of the oldest average ages in Europe, so things could change. All the testing in the world doesn't help once the spread can no longer be contained.
Click to expand...
BR14, I hope I am wrong here, but are the government ignoring certain options around testing and PPE because it is cheaper to go elsewhere. i.e. using british manufactureres of PPE and they are looking for the cheapest testing options. To be clear I don't know, but it quacks like a duck and waddles like one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top