BBC1 Panorama - "Undercover Inside The Covid Lab"

[CeramicMX5ND2]

I've never had to have a Covid-19 test, and had my first vaccine a week and a half ago.
Seems to be some "issues" with testing standards, to meet the numbers required...!

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000tqjj

[jimothyc]

I think when you're doing 1.5 million of anything a day, you'd be able to find issues somewhere. I've not seen the program, but I have read the accompanying advert/news piece on the BBC site. Seems like they are treading a line between public intrest investigative journalism and government bashing sensationalism.

[Boringvolvodriver]

jimothyc said:

I think when you're doing 1.5 million of anything a day, you'd be able to find issues somewhere. I've not seen the program, but I have read the accompanying advert/news piece on the BBC site. Seems like they are treading a line between public intrest investigative journalism and government bashing sensationalism.

Although one would think that given the implications of a positive or negative test for both the individual and public health in general, that standards should have been a bit better perhaps.

How much were the lab and others getting paid for the testing and how much profit have they made?

[Oil Trash]

Didn’t I read it was non profit ?

[jimothyc]

Boringvolvodriver said:

jimothyc said:

I think when you're doing 1.5 million of anything a day, you'd be able to find issues somewhere. I've not seen the program, but I have read the accompanying advert/news piece on the BBC site. Seems like they are treading a line between public intrest investigative journalism and government bashing sensationalism.

Although one would think that given the implications of a positive or negative test for both the individual and public health in general, that standards should have been a bit better perhaps.

How much were the lab and others getting paid for the testing and how much profit have they made?

There will be margins for error in testing whatever you do. However you would hope that they would try to minimise process errors where possible. I guess if you can increase throughput 50% for an additional 5% error rate, you're still winning.

[Narcisus]

jimothyc said:

Boringvolvodriver said:

jimothyc said:

I think when you're doing 1.5 million of anything a day, you'd be able to find issues somewhere. I've not seen the program, but I have read the accompanying advert/news piece on the BBC site. Seems like they are treading a line between public intrest investigative journalism and government bashing sensationalism.

Although one would think that given the implications of a positive or negative test for both the individual and public health in general, that standards should have been a bit better perhaps.

How much were the lab and others getting paid for the testing and how much profit have they made?

There will be margins for error in testing whatever you do. However you would hope that they would try to minimise process errors where possible. I guess if you can increase throughput 50% for an additional 5% error rate, you're still winning.

Mrs N works in labs she was looking through her fingers.

[Boringvolvodriver]

Oil Trash said:

Didn’t I read it was non profit ?

Yes - I have just had a look at Companies House and it is indeed non profit. So that is not the issue .

[NotMine]

I think it good rate compared to how many test are done?

[SiH]

Dido Harding
Deloitte
Lighthouse Labs

Nuff said...

[williamp]

Is this to do with the number of cycles performed? Where they cycle so much they can find very very trace amounts, and now they arent cycling as much, so dont see the same numbers?

[Chromegrill]

williamp said:

Is this to do with the number of cycles performed? Where they cycle so much they can find very very trace amounts, and now they arent cycling as much, so dont see the same numbers?

No idea why this myth about PCR refuses to go away. The suggestion that someone in a powerful position hidden in a bunker somewhere tells everyone else (not just in the Nightingale labs, but in NHS hospital labs up and down the country) to make the test more or less sensitive to make the case numbers go up and down to suit Government narrative is somewhat fanciful. Especially as they would be having to say the same thing around the world in countries facing a third wave right now. We're not that good at keeping secrets, you know. In any case numbers of cycles used in the UK for testing and detecting coronavirus are published online.

One other point - a significant proportion of all positive test results are genetically sequenced to find the exact, entire genetic sequence of the virus. If there were widespread failings in the processing of samples it would be highly unlikely that the results of the sequencing would be what they are - most samples deliver good quality viral genome (which would not be the case if someone was "cranking up the machine cycle times" to find any random dregs of viral RNA). And that viral genome reveals a wide range of mutations (which would be unlikely after widespread laboratory contamination from a small number of samples).

There's no place for shoddy lab technique, but it's more than a stretch to suggest that undermines the results of the large number of tests going through the labs every day.

[Electro1980]

jimothyc said:

I think when you're doing 1.5 million of anything a day, you'd be able to find issues somewhere. I've not seen the program, but I have read the accompanying advert/news piece on the BBC site. Seems like they are treading a line between public intrest investigative journalism and government bashing sensationalism.

The issue is that these tests are being done at speed and under pressure. When people work at speed and under pressure they make mistakes. The reason they are working at speed and under pressure is there are not enough path’ labs. The reason there are not enough? The government cut funding for pathology for years because “efficiency”.

[loafer123]

Anyone who believes anything Panorama broadcast needs psychiatric help.

[williamp]

Chromegrill said:

williamp said:

Is this to do with the number of cycles performed? Where they cycle so much they can find very very trace amounts, and now they arent cycling as much, so dont see the same numbers?

No idea why this myth about PCR refuses to go away. The suggestion that someone in a powerful position hidden in a bunker somewhere tells everyone else (not just in the Nightingale labs, but in NHS hospital labs up and down the country) to make the test more or less sensitive to make the case numbers go up and down to suit Government narrative is somewhat fanciful. Especially as they would be having to say the same thing around the world in countries facing a third wave right now. We're not that good at keeping secrets, you know. In any case numbers of cycles used in the UK for testing and detecting coronavirus are published online.

One other point - a significant proportion of all positive test results are genetically sequenced to find the exact, entire genetic sequence of the virus. If there were widespread failings in the processing of samples it would be highly unlikely that the results of the sequencing would be what they are - most samples deliver good quality viral genome (which would not be the case if someone was "cranking up the machine cycle times" to find any random dregs of viral RNA). And that viral genome reveals a wide range of mutations (which would be unlikely after widespread laboratory contamination from a small number of samples).

There's no place for shoddy lab technique, but it's more than a stretch to suggest that undermines the results of the large number of tests going through the labs every day.

So have the number of cycles performed changed at all? And are they diffeent from the WHO guidelines? If so,why have they changed and and why dont they follow the WHO guidelines?

[loafer123]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning#:~:text=S...

[anonymous-user]

Apologies if this is clear from the film, I've not had chance to watch it yet.

How do these type of investigations work out for the journalists doing the secret filming? I assume they have to apply for a vacancy and then work within the organisation for a time? What happens to the journalist when a film is published? Do they just walk out of the role leaving a vacancy again and the organisation short staffed? If that's the case then what are the implications for the media outlet in charge of that when they take a vacancy for an incredibly important role but never had the intention to fulfil that role and leave the organisation short staffed and in the lurch during a pandemic? I appreciate they've uncovered some issues with the testing procedure but on the flip side they'll have cause their own issues with the process now being short staffed again and now the organisation has to work harder to fill the vacancy again and spend more time they don't have getting the new applicant up to speed. Or doesn't it work that way?

[shed driver]

loafer123 said:

Anyone who believes anything Panorama broadcast needs psychiatric help.

Not really - I remember being absolutely appalled at the Winterbourne View scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winterbourne_View_ho...

In my view one of the best ever bits of TV investigative journalism.


SD.