Statistics watchdog criticises ‘far from comprehensible’ data on coronavirus tests
- Credit: Pippa Fowles/10 Downing Street/Crown Copyright/PA Wire
Health secretary Matt Hancock has been rebuked by the UK's statistics watchdog over coronavirus testing figures which are 'still far from complete and comprehensible'.
UK Statistics Authority chairman Sir David Norgrove said 'it is not surprising that given their inadequacy data on testing are so widely criticised and often mistrusted'.
He criticised the way the figures are presented at the daily Downing Street briefings, with the headline total including both tests carried out and those which have been posted to recipients but not yet conducted.
The government has hit targets aimed at carrying out 100,000 tests a day by the end of April and having the capacity for 200,000 tests of various kinds by the end of May.
But Sir David said: 'The testing statistics still fall well short of its expectations.
You may also want to watch:
'It is not surprising that given their inadequacy data on testing are so widely criticised and often mistrusted.'
He told Hancock: 'Statistics on testing perhaps serve two main purposes.
- 1 The stench of scandal seeping out from Britain
- 2 Why is devout Jacob Rees-Mogg so quiet about Boris Johnson's affairs?
- 3 Major and Blair were right about Brexit and Northern Ireland
- 4 Dominic Cummings' new venture could cause concern for No 10
- 5 Roman Kemp: Depression and coping with George Michael's death
- 6 The symbolism behind the reopening of pubs
- 7 Government deletes pro-Scottish independence blog post
- 8 Why are there so few BAME faces on the fronts of our newspapers?
- 9 David Cameron and Matt Hancock discussed NHS scheme over 'private drink'
- 10 PM chooses not to attend Prince Philip’s funeral because of guest limits
'The first is to help us understand the epidemic, alongside the ONS survey, showing us how many people are infected, or not, and their relevant characteristics.
'The second purpose is to help manage the test programme, to ensure there are enough tests, that they are carried out or sent where they are needed and that they are being used as effectively as possible.
'The data should tell the public how effectively the testing programme is being managed.
'The way the data are analysed and presented currently gives them limited value for the first purpose.
'The aim seems to be to show the largest possible number of tests, even at the expense of understanding.
'It is also hard to believe the statistics work to support the testing programme itself. The statistics and analysis serve neither purpose well.'
Sir David said that 'good evidence, trusted by the public, is essential to success in containing the virus'.
A Department of Health and Social Care spokesman said: 'The secretary of state has spoken to Sir David and reiterated the Department's commitment to continuing to work closely with the UKSA to address their concerns.
'We have sought to work closely with the UKSA throughout our response to coronavirus to ensure statistics, which are prepared in very challenging circumstances, are presented in the best way possible.
'Our approach throughout has been to increase transparency around the government's response to coronavirus.'
Shadow health secretary Jonathan Ashworth said: 'This intervention from the UK statistics authority is damning.
'For test and trace to be effective we all need confidence in the data. The health secretary must start publishing the numbers of people tested and the number of contacts traced.
'He must stop including mailed tests as completed. He must offer a full update on how many care home residents, care staff and NHS staff have been routinely tested whether symptomatic or not.'
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.