Students wiped themselves off, while school nurses, despite proven rapid tests, only watch when administered properly.
Students at the Oasis Academy in Coulsdon, Surrey were given the kits on Monday and received instructions from the nurses on how to do the tests themselves.
Only children in need of protection or those whose parents are key workers are allowed to attend classes in person during the last national lockdown. According to figures, up to 20 percent of students could still attend schools.
But children are now being supervised by nurses, much like some walk-in testing centers operate, rather than having a nurse do the tests themselves.
The idea is that fewer medical experts or volunteers are needed so that more people can be tested more quickly.
However, several studies show that lateral flow tests – when self-administered – can miss cases due to the force and depth required to collect a sample.
It is because the demand for a limit on the number of children in school is increasing and the number of visitors in some areas has risen to over 50 percent.
Student Molly Tinker is taking a COVID-19 test at the Oasis Academy in Coulsdon, Surrey today
Student Ruby Soden receives instructions on how to self-administer her coronavirus test
Student Henry Parker is given instructions and equipment to perform his virus test
Student Lily Mae Milliman is doing her COVID-19 test with a mirror to aid in using the swab
After use, the swab is placed in a reactant that will indicate if the user has Covid
The tests were mailed to schools before closing under the UK's new lockdown
The tests, which give results in just 15 minutes, use nasal or throat swabs.
The samples are then mixed in a test liquid and placed in a plastic cassette that can detect the presence or absence of coronavirus, and then an image of a line is created, similar to a pregnancy test, to indicate whether it is positive or negative.
Experts recommend that a trained nurse or professional perform the swab insertion to get to the required site, which can be extremely uncomfortable.
Experts warned last year that some self-tests are less accurate because they use shorter swabs and don't have to be inserted as deep into the nose.
And in December, a study in the British Medical Journal warned that the rapid test kits were not as effective as others.
The results of a pilot project involving 3,199 people have blasted a hole in the government's mass testing strategy, which included plans to run millions of 30-minute tests so Brits could live normally again.
The lateral flow tests carried out by Innova in the USA detect only 48.89 percent of active infections, according to a pilot program at the University of Liverpool.
It contradicted previous lab tests that found the test to have an overall sensitivity of 76.8 percent, increasing to 95 percent in those with high viral loads.
The polymerase chain reaction test (PCR) is more accurate and has achieved better detection results.
The BMJ report states: "Innova Lateral Flow's SARS-CoV-2 antigen test failed to detect three out of ten cases with the highest viral load in preliminary data published from the field assessment of tests in asymptomatic individuals."
Jonathan Ball, a professor of molecular virology at the University of Nottingham, said they had practical uses and were defending them.
There is concern that self-administered tests might miss cases due to the depth of swab collection required
Professional swabs are longer and can be painful when administered by a nurse
He said, “Even if the PCR test does not detect as many infected people, it does identify those with the highest viral loads and those who are most likely to infect others.
"It won't replace other tests like PCR, but it is a useful additional tool for coronavirus control."
The instructions for some tests say, "No force is required and you don't have to push far into your nostril."
However, professional swabs, which are much longer and are designed to take samples from the “floor of the nose,” can cause people to choke, water their eyes, or even nosebleeds if done properly.
Infectious disease specialists say people are more likely to make swabs themselves – which is notoriously difficult even for trained health professionals. False negative results mean that people infected with the virus are mistakenly told that they are in good health.
Infectious disease specialists say false negative results increase the likelihood of people using swabs
Schools could still spread coronavirus
Covid-19 infections will continue to spread in classrooms where large numbers of children in lockdown attend schools, experts have warned.
The Independent Sage scientific advisory group is calling for the definition of key workers to be narrowed down and for those unable to work given the high demand for school places to be given more financial support or vacation.
The group of scientists, chaired by former scientific director Sir David King, warns that disadvantaged children are at a "higher risk of infection" due to the high number of students eligible to attend class.
The warning came after the government told schools not to limit the number of children of key workers on the ground during England's national lockdown – and it said vulnerable children should be strongly encouraged to attend.
School principals have reported high demand for places after school and college students – with the exception of children of key workers and vulnerable students – were asked to study remotely by mid-February.
Children at risk include “students who may have difficulty engaging in distance learning at home” because of a lack of equipment or a quiet space to study.
The Independent Sage report states, “Firstly … this undermines the whole point of school closure making the policy less effective and thus increasing the duration of the closure.
"Second, it puts disadvantaged children at an even higher risk of infection."
In response to the high demand from key parents of workers, it adds, "This runs the risk of increasing the number of students in the school to the point where policies and teachers' ability to provide distance learning become less effective , is being undermined. "
Independent Sage calls for the creation of a national education task force involving government, councils, teachers, parents and students to "create a more Covid-safe environment in schools".
John Murphy, CEO of Oasis Trust, said on the Monday before the general school lockdown and closure, “We know for a fact that our young people, with their teachers and their friends in the classroom, are making the best progress in quality initial education.
& # 39; Therefore, we can be sure that mass testing in schools will give our children, parents, teachers and staff additional confidence and have the potential to significantly reduce learning disabilities alongside our existing Covid controls.
"In January we will be testing the tests in a number of our schools before implementing them in all of our secondary schools across the country."
Schools received extensive online training modules with 1,500 military personnel to provide advice and guidance on setting up the process.
Under current UK guidelines, there is no rule to stay home after a negative test, even if they have symptoms. Medics say the UK is not keeping up with other countries like New Zealand – where the Covid-19 outbreak was quickly contained, making the tests less relevant and running them multiple times.
Norwich-based researcher Dr. University and College Union Equality Officer Katherine Deane is concerned about how effective infection control will be.
She told the Eastern Daily Press, "Schools do not have infection control experts, so the precision of the facility, cleaning the area, wearing personal protective equipment, and ventilation are all concerns.
“If you have a swab test it can lead to a cough – a gag reflex, and the droplets go up in the air.
“The big ones will fall quickly, but the good ones can stay in the air for up to an hour.
“And yet the idea of the test is that you let one student wipe it clean, clean up, and five minutes later the next student gets tested.
"This means supervisors may have a higher risk of infection. If infection control is not meticulous, venues are at risk of super-spreader events happening."
Professor Jon Deeks, an expert in biostatistics at the University of Birmingham, said, “A single negative test result does not rule out the disease. It's so easy to miss the virus – they give off a lot of false negatives. & # 39;
Research has shown that up to 30 percent of professional swab tests produce false negative results, meaning the number of positive cases may be underestimated by thousands.
It's not clear how imprecise self-smears are, even though they are done over 60,000 times a day in the UK. The Ministry of Health will not publish any data on the false negative rates of its tests.
Britain is spending more than £ 1 billion on rapid coronavirus swab tests to achieve Operation Moonshot – a goal to test everyone in the country at least once a week.
HOW LATERAL FLOW TESTS ARE TO BE TRUSTED ONLY IF THEY ARE MANAGED BY TRAINING STAFF
Lateral flow tests are only accurate in diagnosing coronavirus when administered by trained professionals, as studies have repeatedly shown.
The tests, which give results in just 15 minutes, use nasal or throat swabs. The samples are then mixed in a test liquid and placed in a plastic cassette that can detect the presence or absence of coronavirus, and then an image of a line is created, similar to a pregnancy test, to indicate whether it is positive or negative.
The Department of Health and the NHS are instructing people to do the tests on themselves, although the makers of some kits said they shouldn't be used as DIY swabs.
Both the smear procedure and the use of the test cassette can easily be performed incorrectly and affect the accuracy of the test.
If the swab is not inserted long enough or deep enough into the nose or throat, it may not pick up virus fragments. Healthcare professionals may also use nasopharyngeal swabs that reach the back of the nostril, while this is not recommended for people testing themselves.
And if the sample is not properly placed in the cartridge, the result may be incorrect or the display may be misinterpreted when a result is generated.
SELF-TEST CUTTING ACCURACY FROM 79% TO 58%.
An evaluation by the University of Oxford and Public Health England of the Innova lateral flow test, widely used in the UK, found that its sensitivity – the percentage of positive cases noted – fell from 79 to 58 percent when used by untrained members of the public instead of laboratory experts.
Based on this assessment, the officers pushed them forward and used them for a real self-test.
PILOT FOUND IN LIVERPOOL LESS THAN HALF THE POSITIVE
When the same Innova test was tested on members of the public in Liverpool – with people taking their own swabs and trained military personnel doing the tests – the swabs picked up only 40 percent of positive cases.
In the study, the rapid tests gave 891 positive results compared to laboratory-based PCR swabs, which found 2,829 positive results in the same group. This means that 1,938 people received a false negative result from the rapid test.
The study did not compare this to professionally performed rapid tests, but manufacturer Innova claims its test is 95 percent sensitive in laboratory conditions.
… BUT TESTING BY MEDICS IN SLOVAKIA & # 39; REDUCED INFECTIONS & # 39;
Although rapid cross-river tests received bad press, officials in Slovakia used them on 5.2 million people – almost the entire population of 5.5 million – in a study that a study later estimated to help reduce the country's infection rate by 60 percent .
The tests used were between 70 and 90 percent accurate and all swabs and assessments were performed by trained medical personnel. They used deep nasopharyngeal swabs that reach the bridge of the nose, while the self-test generally relies on just a swab of the nostril.
Researchers at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine said the program successfully screened coronavirus cases that otherwise would not have been found and reduced the number of cases by more than half within a week during a lockdown.
HOW FAST TESTS ARE DIFFERENT FROM LAB-BASED PCR SWABS
Lateral flow tests are an alternative to the gold standard PCR test – scientifically known as the polymerase chain reaction test – which is more expensive and labor intensive, but more accurate.
A swab is also used in PCR testing, but it is processed using high-tech laboratory equipment to analyze the genetic sequence of the sample and determine if any of them match the genes of the coronavirus.
This is a much longer and more expensive process that involves several types of trained personnel. The analysis process can take hours, with the entire process from swab to receiving the result taking days.
However, it is much more accurate. Under ideal conditions, the tests will be almost 100 percent accurate in detecting the virus, although this is closer to 70 percent in the real world.
In a TV briefing at the end of October, Prime Minister Boris Johnson said: “We now have the immediate prospect of carrying out many millions of cheaper, more reliable and, above all, faster turnaround tests.
& # 39; Tests that will help you determine if you are contagious or not and that will get the result within ten to 15 minutes.
“And we know from nationwide trials in schools and hospitals that we can use these tests not only to locate infectious people, but to combat the disease.
"That is why we are planning a steady but massive expansion of the use of these quick turnaround tests over the next few days and weeks."
He said they were being used in "an ever increasing number of situations," including in hospitals to test "entire cities and even entire cities."
However, scientists warned that the tests are not accurate enough to be considered Covid-free if they get a negative result.
Dr. Loughborough University's Duncan Robertson said in a series of tweets about the Liverpool report, “So … we have a mass testing regime that has a large number of false negatives. The problem with this is that people may take tests, find out that the test is negative, and then think they are negative.
“This can put people at risk and people in the communities in which they live, such as B. Nursing home residents endanger.
"The bottom line is that if you test negative, it doesn't mean you are not or won't be contagious."
In the meantime, calls to limit the number of children in school are increasing, with attendance in some areas rising to over 50 percent.
School principals are in an "impossible position" because they cannot allow all eligible students to attend while reducing "social mixing".
In some schools, job demand for key working-class families has increased fivefold from the last lockdown. And the students are in “super-size” bubbles with up to 32 children, so that the employees are “really afraid” of the possible spread of Covid.
The Ministry of Education has expanded the categories of vulnerable children who can still go to school and added more critical workers whose children can also attend. The already extensive list of key workers now includes Brexit transition workers.
But last night the department updated its guidelines to clarify that "children with at least one parent or carer who is a critical worker can go to school or college if necessary".
However, these "parents and carers should keep their children at home whenever they can". An accompanying DfE blog states: “If a child has a parent who is a critical worker, the parent must decide whether to keep the child at home. We encourage parents to keep the spirit of lockdown in mind when making their decision. & # 39;
The Association of School and University Leaders (ASCL) and the National Association of School Leaders (NAHT) have urgently requested clarification of the “maximum” number of students who can participate.
Independent Sage – a group of scientists offering an alternate perspective to government advisors – said yesterday that disadvantaged children are now at "risk of major infection" because they can attend classes when they don't have access to digital at home Devices.
It has been recommended that the government restrict the definition of key workers.
Paul Whiteman, general secretary of NAHT, said that "lack of internet access to a vulnerable criterion" "only physically contributed to the numbers" in classrooms.
Schools saw much higher demand for places during this lockdown. According to reports, some visitors have a visitor count of 50 to 70 percent.
This is a problem as schools encourage the transmission of the virus. One in 27 secondary school students and one in 39 primary school students had Covid-19 on Christmas Day, according to the Office for National Statistics.
Mr. Whiteman added: “The schools have been put in an impossible position. They fail to meet government-created demand and reduce social mixing. We would like to urge the government to make it clear how many local students are too many if the virus is to be suppressed. & # 39;
Geoff Barton, ASCL general secretary, said: “We hear reports that attendance at some elementary schools is over 50 percent due to demand from critical workers and families with children classified as at-risk on criteria that have been significantly expanded . We are urgently working to clarify the maximum number of people that should be in the school. & # 39;
Half of all students at Willerby Carr Lane Elementary School in the East Riding of Yorkshire are still in class. Around 187 children came to class on Wednesday in “super-size” bubbles with a size of 25 to 32 pupils.
Invicta Elementary School in Deptford, southeast London, has five times as many students as it was when it was last closed.
(tagsToTranslate) Dailymail (t) Nachrichten (t) Coronavirus (t) Coronavirus blocks