-
govuk-puppet
Discontinued Decommissioned: Puppet manifests that used to provision the legacy GOV.UK stack.
-
InfluxDB
Power Real-Time Data Analytics at Scale. Get real-time insights from all types of time series data with InfluxDB. Ingest, query, and analyze billions of data points in real-time with unbounded cardinality.
Sirs, Thank you for the reply. I have the following questions/rebuttals that require answered or an internal review carried out on your original answers: I asked: FOI request: Please supply the original e-mail from the Secretary of State for Health or his representative to the MHRA. You replied: In accordance with Section 1(1)(a) of the Act, UKHSA can confirm that it does not hold this information in the form described in your request. As the MHRA stated the communication was in e-mail form and supplied all the references they replied using I find this answer strange. Follow-up Question: Please supply in whatever format the UKHSA holds in it’s possession the original communication from the Secretary of State for Health to the MHRA requesting the repurposing of the Innova/DHSC LFTs. I asked; FOI Request: Please supply the information supplied to the MHRA as per point 17 in their reply, the monthly Post market Surveillance plan and Quality Management System You replied: As some of the information you have requested is available in the public domain, we will under Section 21(1) of the Act (information accessible to the applicant by other means) refer you to the published source. A summary of performance data, which is part of the post market surveillance information referenced in condition 10, has been updated here: Lateral flow device (LFD) performance data - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk). Further details will be published as part of the in-depth overview described above. I have received from the DHSC more documents, studies etc about this subject along with the link you supplied and have read them all in depth. Nowhere in any of the documents etc I received from the DHSC justified in any way the repurposing of the LFTs in question. The DHSC also sent em a different link about asymptomatic testing using LFTs: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment\_data/file/999866/asymptomatic-testing-for-SARS-CoV-2-using-antigen-detecting-lateral-flow-devices-evidence-from-performance-data-Oct-2020-to-May-2021.pdf Follow-up Questions: 1 - As the DHSC supplied me more documents and studies than the UKSA did why did the UKHSA not send me the same answer to the same question? 2 - Does the UKHSA have in it’s possession the PA Consulting Usuability Study dated the 26th November 2020 that the DHSC supplied me? 3 - If the UKHSA does have in it’s possession the PA Consulting Usuability Study dated the 26th November 2020 why was it not supplied as part of the FOI answer? 4 - If the UKHSA does not have in it’s possession the PA Consulting Usuability Study dated the 26th November 2020 will the UKHSA now request it from the DHSC? 5 - Please supply the information contained in the supplied link and in the PA Consulting Usuability Study dated the 26th November 2020 that justifies the repurposing of the LFTs in question considering that the following are quotes from the documents in question: some steps report a 58% error rate in following the instructions - this was on step one, putting the test on a clean surface prior to use 15% could not wash their hands properly before using the swab. It also used a hand-picked cohort of just 60 participants so how is this a large enough study to justify the repurposing especially when the 2 points above are considered? "The LFD antigen test detected 100% of the most infectious high viral load, 50% of people with a low viral load, and 9% of those with minimal viral load.” so not accurate enough to justify mass asymptomatic testing is it? The LFTs were compared against PCR tests of the same sample to see how accurate teh LFTs were but "There is currently no gold standard test for transmissible virus" and "As PCR is an imperfect gold standard” quotes are in the documents comparison against a PCR test verifies very little I asked: FOI request: Please supply the information supplied to the MHRA every 2 weeks under point 10 in their reply. You replied: "However, this information is exempt under Section 22(1) of the Act, under which public authorities are not obliged to disclose information that is intended for future publication. “ Follow-up Question: When do you plan to release or publish the information? Yours sincerely
Related posts
-
Help with my income tax calculations, should salary sacrifices be considered as part of the taxable income or not?
-
Should I report suspicious behaviour in my street?
-
Do I need a Transit Visa?
-
Expats - what did you do about your savings accounts when you moved here?
-
I think HR asked me to commit minor VAT fraud