School testing ‘just a shambles’ say scientists
SCHOOL Covid testing is a shambles as there are no follow-ups to false results, scientists say.
Independent SAGE’s Professor Christina Pagel said: “It’s a mess. The tests are easy to do badly and it’s difficult to test children properly.”
Dr Zubaida Haque added: “The entire testing approach to schools is a shambles. Neither schools nor parents know exactly what to do.
On top of that, the whole system is voluntary.” Under Government guidelines, children and their families should take two lateral-flow tests a week at home, giving results in 30 minutes.
If positive, they are advised to get a more accurate polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test at a centre. If that is negative there is no need for them to isolate. But there is no requirement for follow-up tests for teachers and pupils if the swabs are taken at school. Prof Pagel said that means there could be one in 1,000 false results.
Dr Kit Yates of Bath University added: “So it makes no sense not to use confirmatory tests now there’s enough capacity.”
Shadow Education Secretary Kate Green said she was surprised by the system used.
Iam still perplexed by That Interview. I ask myself: Why did they do it? Meghan and Harry profess to revere the Queen. I have no reason to doubt that.
But they must have known how much distress their barrage of allegations would cause her (and doubtless Archie’s ailing great-grandfather as well).
They should also have realised that, as a result of what they said, Britain would be looked at askance by millions of people around the world – that the monarchy would be bruised as well.
Oprah Winfrey, in that cloying language adopted by American celebrities, wondered what Buckingham Palace might think at “hearing you speak your truth”. Neither of them could have been in much doubt.
It is one thing to have a go at the media and to point out that some newspapers – but not this one, so far as I am aware – have veered dangerously close to describing Meghan in terms that are tantamount to dogwhistle racism.
It is quite another though to suggest – as both of them did – that one or more of their relatives is a racist.
This was the most damaging charge of all. Prompted by Oprah, Meghan insinuated that an unnamed member of the Royal Family had discussed Archie’s possible skin tone in terms which betrayed racist attitudes.
Oprah put on her best “I am very shocked to hear this” expression and then asked Harry to identify the guilty royal.
He refused to do so, adding coyly that he was “not comfortable with sharing” the name of their target.
Racism is a scourge that demeans all of us who live in countries where it blights the lives of so many of our fellow citizens.
But to jump from this ugly truth to the conclusion that merely to discuss the skin tone of a baby is an act of racial prejudice is patently absurd – as any of us who have mixed-race relatives and friends will tell you. In the case of the Royal Family, we have no idea what was said about the then yetto-be born baby or in what context.
Inevitably though, by a process of elimination – it was evidently not the Queen or the Duke of Edinburgh – some fingers will point at Archie’s grandfather.
I have known Prince Charles pretty well for almost 30 years.
I have seen him in close-up with people of all ages, colours, races, ethnicities and religions.
In the many hours I have spent with him in Britain and elsewhere in the world, I have not heard him utter a single word that could be described as racist. I have not spoken to him or any of his staff about the interview, but I can well imagine how he must feel – saddened, frustrated and bemused.
You may remember how gently he escorted Meghan down the aisle at her wedding and afterwards took her mother by the arm – a spontaneous gesture that reflects his nature of the man. Even more tellingly, talk to those young black people in Britain who know him through the Prince’s Trust, or their parents who were there when he has so often been the first public figure on the scene after an inner-city upheaval or riot, seeking to understand and to reconcile.
As they know, great parts of his adult life have been devoted to bringing people together, uniting a
divided nation. No racist could do that. The Prince does not have a racist bone in his body.
Prince William, clearly horrified by the allegation, felt this so strongly that he broke with convention to say so, succinctly and bluntly.
So why did his younger brother feel the need to leave that open to doubt? I do not understand.
I watched Harry when he was a young child in the grounds of Balmoral, playing mischievously with his father (who, like any parent, could on occasion become exasperated by his obstreperous offspring).
I saw him more recently when, with his brother, he co-hosted a birthday party for their father at which they both charmed the guests and spoke lightheartedly but warmly about the support and love he had shown them.
So why did Harry feel the need to tell the world that he felt “really let down” by his father and – though he is clearly not short of a bob or two –that his family had “literally cut me off financially”?
Does he really think this is the best way to restore family harmony?
It is one thing to stand up for important principles and speak out for good causes, as both Meghan and Harry have done.
We all benefit when they talk about mental health and especially about the extremes of emotion that can accompany pregnancy. It is quite another to trash the reputation of unnamed individuals who – as they both know – have no means of “sharing their truth” with us about their alleged lack of compassion without turning the monarchy into a circus. Did they really wish that?
There are those who very much hope that they did. For those columnists who feed on gossip, rumour, half-truths and lies about the royals, and regurgitate it for public entertainment, the interview is manna from heaven.
Likewise, for those who will pick up any mud and throw it at the Royal Family in the hope that some of it will stick and, in due course, bury the monarchy.
These should be distinguished from those honourable republicans who don’t play that game: their guns are directed openly and cogently at the hereditary principle.
Which brings me back to where I started – why did they do it? I write history and I don’t like leaping to conclusions without firm evidence.
So I have to speculate. Was it a malicious enterprise, designed to humiliate the Royal Family?
Was it lingering resentment that they could not have their cake and eat it – representing the Crown at one moment and building their business empire at the next?
Was it a calculated attempt to promote their new roles as megabucks celebrities devoted to global good works?
I don’t want to believe any of that.
Better by far that it was a confused bundle of powerful emotions as they adjust to a new and uncertain life that prompted them, unthinkingly, to “share their truth” with the rest of us. I hope so.
I also hope that their self-absorbed splurge will soon be lost in the mists of time.
There are rather greater issues to face in these troubled times.