4 ms·

Quote: > [...] research published this week by The BMJ [...] finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of p

Quote: > [...] research published this week by The BMJ [...] finds that the government procured an antibody test that in real world tests falls well short of performance claims made by its manufacturers. Researchers from Public Health England and collaborating institutions sensibly pushed to publish their study findings before the government committed to buying a million of these tests but were blocked by the health department and the prime minister’s office. Why was it important to procure this product without due scrutiny? Prior publication of research on a preprint server or a government website is compatible with The BMJ’s publication policy. As if to prove a point, Public Health England then unsuccessfully attempted to block The BMJ’s press release about the research paper.

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago
This seems like pretty dishonest framing from the article. The government was quite explicit about why it was important to procure this product without due scrutiny (https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4353?ijkey=369744d6c8b0a332cbd7d1378b0ac1556cb2f2c0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4353?ijkey=369744d6c8b0...). They urgently needed a lot of tests in order to do surveillance testing, and the normal standards of quality for medical tests don't matter enough to delay pandemic surveillance until they're satisfied. More generally, I think this clearly demonstrates the problem with claims of politicization: the question of which corners should be cut to address a public health emergency is inherently political.
- s1artibartfast 6y ago
  If the governments position was simply that this test was good enough, or that they wanted to proceeded at risk, there would be no problem. The problem is that the government also actively tried to suppress accurate scientific publications about these tests.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 6y ago

This seems like pretty dishonest framing from the article. The government was quite explicit about why it was important to procure this product without due scrutiny (https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4353?ijkey=369744d6c8b0a332cbd7d1378b0ac1556cb2f2c0&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4353?ijkey=369744d6c8b0...). They urgently needed a lot of tests in order to do surveillance testing, and the normal standards of quality for medical tests don't matter enough to delay pandemic surveillance until they're satisfied. More generally, I think this clearly demonstrates the problem with claims of politicization: the question of which corners should be cut to address a public health emergency is inherently political.

s1artibartfast 6y ago
If the governments position was simply that this test was good enough, or that they wanted to proceeded at risk, there would be no problem. The problem is that the government also actively tried to suppress accurate scientific publications about these tests.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]