Methodological problems of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care tests when used in mass testing

Hirsch, Oliver; Bergholz, W.; Kisielinski, Kai; Giboni, Paul; Sönnichsen, Andreas

doi:10.3934/publichealth.2022007

Cited by 9 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 47 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mass testing of healthy, asymptomatic people is highly controversial epidemiologically and in no way leads to pandemic control [255]. It is now clear that there can be no herd immunity from this vaccination and that children and adolescents do not benefit from this vaccination due to minimal to mild courses of COVID-19 [158].…”

Section: (38th Wave)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“… December 15-16, 2020 (30th wave) Not only the benefits but also the limited reliability of rapid tests should be communicated more widely. Methodological problems of rapid point-of-care tests, especially regarding false positives, have also been shown [ 255 ]. End of December 2020 (waves 31 and 32) Knowledge that rapid contact reduction is relevant to caseload reduction should be spread.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Government communication alone no longer reaches a sufficiently large group due to the loss of trust and other actors should urgently be involved. The mass testing of healthy, asymptomatic people is highly controversial epidemiologically and in no way leads to pandemic control [ 255 ]. March 23-24, 2021 (39th wave) Achieving acceptance of the measures can hardly be a political goal at present.…”

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

“…16, 2020 (30th wave) Not only the benefits but also the limited reliability of rapid tests should be communicated more widely.Methodological problems of rapid point-of-care tests, especially regarding false positives, have also been shown[255].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Junger,

Hirsch

2024

Cureus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people's behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

show abstract

Section: (38th Wave)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Tablementioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Junger,

Hirsch

2024

Cureus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…

In memoriam Walter Hirsch (1936Hirsch ( -2022. Based on his childhood experiences, the current situation reminded him of the one he knew from that time.

…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Elements of propaganda in the Western world's political, public health, and media narratives of 2020-2022

Hirsch,

Rinner

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

<p>In this chapter, we briefly review foundational contributions to the study of propaganda along with examples of the use of propaganda techniques in medicine in the past. We then illustrate and discuss elements of propaganda found in communications from government, public health administration, and the mainstream media during the COVID-19 pandemic from 2020 to early 2022. The examples are drawn from Germany, Canada, and other countries in the Western World. They include elements of simplification and faulty analogies, emotional appeals and scapegoating, and manipulating numbers. We discuss the use of propaganda from an ethical perspective with particular attention to fear narratives, the weakness of the underlying evidence, and the use of moral appeals. We conclude that the use of propaganda techniques to support the COVID-19 pandemic response was unethical, since the broad scope and uniformity of the response measures were not sufficiently established by scientific evidence or by the facts on the ground.</p>

show abstract

Disputes over the figures of the COVID‐19 pandemic: Epistemic diversity, dissemination of science, and political opposition

Sarrazin,

Cáceres

2024

Sociology Health & Illness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The health policies imposed by multiple national governments after the emergence of SARS‐CoV‐2 were publicly justified by official figures on the deaths that the new virus would have caused and could cause in the future. At the same time, however, groups of people from different countries expressed their scepticism about those figures. Although they were categorised as ‘anti‐science’, ‘spreaders of misinformation’ or ‘conspiracy theorists’ in some media, many of those sceptics claimed to be based on scientific evidence. This article qualitatively analyses a sample of the content published by sceptics on their social media between 2020 and 2022. More specifically, it examines the shared documents supposedly coming from the scientific community. We find very diverse content ranging from unsubstantiated assumptions to documents produced by prestigious scientists inviting questions about the fatality rates, the mathematical models anticipating millions of deaths, and the real numbers of people who died from COVID‐19. The disputes surrounding the official figures lead us to a reflection about the relationship between, epistemic diversity, the dissemination of science, censorship, and new forms of political opposition. We also touch upon the nature and ethics of scientific controversy in times of a ‘war’ against ‘misinformation’.

show abstract

Methodological problems of SARS-CoV-2 rapid point-of-care tests when used in mass testing

Cited by 9 publications

References 47 publications

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Elements of propaganda in the Western world's political, public health, and media narratives of 2020-2022

Disputes over the figures of the COVID‐19 pandemic: Epistemic diversity, dissemination of science, and political opposition

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About