It is evident, to most people, that we really do need a quick and reliable test for blood antibodies to determine who has been exposed to the Covid-19 virus and consequently might be able (with documentation?) to safely return to work (especially in the NHS or care). It now appears, however, that the ordered test is not as reliable as had been hoped (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/apr/05/coronavirus-testing-kits-could-be-unreliable-uk-scientists-say). Although it had been claimed to be 90% accurate, this was only when tested in hospitals using blood from people with very clear systems. Some authorities feel that the test is likely to be only have a 50% accuracy (the same as tossing a coin!) in people in the community with milder symptoms. This could never be an acceptable basis for returning people to the 'front line'. I would personally be unhappy with people testing themselves (as they do with a pregnancy test) and self-certifying
This blog may help people explore some of the 'hidden' issues involved in certain media treatments of environmental and scientific issues. Using personal digital images, it's also intended to emphasise seasonal (and other) changes in natural history of the Swansea (South Wales) area. The material should help participants in field-based modules and people generally interested in the natural world. The views are wholly those of the author.
Sunday, 5 April 2020
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Seeing the Changes 2177
On the Loughor-Gorseinon border, noted Sneezewort ( Achilla ptarmica ) in flower as well as Hawthorn ( Crataegus monogyna ) and ...
-
It's necessary, where possible, to replace diesel and petrol-fueled vehicles by electrical equivalents. Electric vehicles (EVs) don...
-
It should hardly be called a study. A Which comparison looked at levels of nitrogen dioxide and small particulates (PM 2.5s) in 5 Londo...
No comments:
Post a Comment