Lewisham Council Covid-19 Rapid Test Survey

Lewisham Council will be getting some rapid test kits, and are aksing for people’s view on whether they would take a test, why they would or would not etc. The survey is anonymous and takes 2 minutes. Deadline to complete is 4th December but the sonner the better I guess for their planning.

Survey is here

From the site:

Lewisham is one of several councils across London to roll out new rapid tests which will allow many more people in Lewisham to get tested whether they have symptoms or not.

Experience elsewhere suggests that it is not always easy to get people to come forward for this testing. We would like to get your feedback on what you believe are some of the barriers that might limit people coming forward to be tested and how we can overcome these.

In order that we get a broader understanding of community attitudes to testing, we are asking a number of questions about you. This information will help us plan the roll out of the testing more effectively.

Done! That was a quick one pager…

I’ve completed it. I really want to help understand the asymptomatic conundrum.

I have not had so much as a sniffle since February, I don’t know if that is because I haven’t had Covid or because I have and haven’t had any symptoms.

Now I’m curious - the testing they’re planning is presumably only the ‘you’ve got it now’ test, not ‘you’ve had it already’ - they’re separate tests, right? It would be interesting to know both answers.

I’m sure it’s just the ‘do you have it now test’.

Not sure they will roll out a 'have you had it’s test, as it doesn’t appear necessarily that accurate and immunity is also debated, and with the vaccine around the corner assume they will focus their efforts on that and the quick tests.

I’d like to know if I’ve had it, but wouldn’t want any government money or resource diverted to my curiosity!

I’m honestly surprised there are no better answers on ‘you’ve had it, therefore immunity’ because if that were the case then they could literally let all these people back out into the workplace. Obviously until they know that for sure then as you say the test is fairly meaningless (aside from statistical data and analytics purposes)

Yeah I think if they were going down a herd immunity route it would be useful. I think there are a few issues with it, as the accuracy of the results is in debate, but also how long immunity would actually last as well as when someone actually had it. Did they get it 1 month ago or 5 months ago, which obviously would be important if immunity only lasted say 6 months and many people were asymptomatic.

Even if surviving a Covid infection does give a person immunity, I think there is also the question as to whether the virus will change, or if there are already multiple versions - meaning you are not fully protected and could still be vulnerable or spreading things unknowingly to others.

For example, the common cold, a rhinovirus, has apparently 160 variations that each look different to the immune system. This is why we can catch a cold multiple times, and it is hard to make a vaccine despite successes for other viruses.

More research is definitely needed, and simple surveys like this take no time and can help inform decision makers.

I’m not really interested.in whether I have had it, more how much asymptomatic infection is in the community.

I have completed it. I would go for a test if symptomatic, but if they started mass testing I would give that a go as well, anything that helps.

My problem with testing is a) that it’s just a snapshot of that moment and b) it’s all stick and no carrot; whereas if they also tested whether you’d had it at the same time you could have both. Got it - self isolate; Had it - released back into the workforce or whatever.
There was a (not conclusive) threat assessment published by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control at the back end of September that found, and I’m paraphrasing, the incidence of proven reinfection was miniscule and transmission of the virus by a reinfected person was non-existent so one could well argue that the benefit to the economy and released peoples mental wellbeing far outweighs any risk to the wider community.
Similarly with the vaccine, once a person is immunised a certificate of immunity could be provided or added to your NHS app and you could go freely about your business, go on holiday, go to sporting events etc but it seems that isn’t going to happen either.
So, all in all, I think I’ll wait for the carrot.

As above, I think many people would like to know if they have had it if that gave them immunity. That is uncertain how long it would last for, how reliable the test is, and would all be extra resource and time which I assume has been looked at and decided is not the best use of people, money and time if there is no certainty re immunity, whilst there is more over a positive result (generally).

However I don’t think that is the carrot you knowing if you’ve had it. The carrot is knowing you have it (or not) so you don’t pass it on to someone else if you do have it. That should be enough.

That would indeed be a carrot if it weren’t just a snapshot of a moment that only meant that I probably wouldn’t infect anyone on the way home; whereas knowing I’d had it would reduce the risk of me infecting anyone ever to almost zero.

Sure it’s not much use to you if you test negative, but it is if you test positive (well less to you and more for others). So if a large proportion of people got tested and we identified people who did not know they were positive, you would hope that, assuming they then isolated, infection rates would come down locally.

I suspect there won’t be badnwidth to do the whole borough and this should be good for people who need to visit people who are high risk and \ or those most likely to be exposed, if they get tested every few days ie less people getting tested more as opposed everyone getting tested less…but there is probably a more scientific analysis than my ramblings to evaluate the best course of action. I’d personally be happy to be tested multiple times if it helped but I can survive having to isolate for a few weeks if need be, which is more difficult for others in certain situations.

And I would love there to be affordable home test kits so I could test myself every morning before I went out but that’s all missing the point. The real carrot would come if we identified everybody who’d had it so they could be freed from restrictions; as they should be, because despite anything Dr Glum and Professor Glummer may tell you about a possible lack of immunity as of 2 weeks ago there were just 25 documented cases of a person being infected twice WORLDWIDE!!!

I think we’d all love this, if it was possible. Anyway, for fear of getting further off-track I shall leave it there!

Testing positive early on may also lead to better healthcare outcomes by preparing any needed treatment sooner. In some settings (e.g. care homes) this may be significant.

but what about your the infectious period after you get home from your? And the possibility of preventing existing infections of your close contacts being passed on?

how does knowing you have had it do this? Even if we assume that having had it does do this.

“only meant that I probably wouldn’t infect anyone on the way home”

That’s a negative test - I can still catch it tomorrow.

I see, agree that (other things being equal) the positive results are much more useful to society as a whole.