This is bbc news with the latest headlines. Questions over coronavirus Antibody Tests. Theyre being rushed out, according to a group of doctors. Labour says housing secretary, robertjenrick, still has questions to answer after new documents reveal his close relationship with a tory donor, whose £1 billion Housing Scheme he approved against the advice of his own officials. Footage shows a police car being vandalised in brixton in south london amid violent clashes with police last night. Around 2,000 management jobs are being cut at royal mail, the Delivery Service hopes to save £130 million in staffing costs next year. Calls for the governement to do more to tackle over eating as new Research Finds morbidly obese patients are twice as likely to die from covid 19 than those
who are not overweight. Warnings over safety on whats set to be the hottest day of the year. Uv rays could reach record levels. Hello, good morning and welcome to bbc news. Im Annita Mcveigh and you can contact me on twitter about any of our stories Annita Mcveigh. A group 01 14 scientists and academics has criticised the decision to roll out mass covid 19 Antibody Testing in england. In a letter to the british medicaljournal, they say the tests which establish whether someone has been infected are unable to prove immunity
from coronavirus and offer no benefit to hospitals are care and care staff. It adds that they have been rolled out without adequate assessment. Public Health England said all tests had been extensively validated by the manufacturers. 0ur health correspondent, naomi grimley, reports. Immunity remains one of the big mysteries of covid 19. Even if you know you have antibodies, does that mean youre actually immune to the virus and can you still transmit it to other people . Sharp scratch. Antibody tests are already proving popular and last month the government said it had bought 10 million to be used on nhs England Staff as well as some patients who are having their blood taken and want to know if theyve had the virus. But in a letter to the british medicaljournal,11i senior academics question the wisdom of doing that. Theyre worried both about whether the tests have been properly assessed and whether its a good use of resources, given that there
are still so many unknowns. There are lots and lots of problems with these tests. The first is they havent been properly validated and weve got very little data and understanding of what these tests actually mean. These tests are for research and they dont actually tell you, as an individual, whether you are safe or not. In response to the bmj letter, public Health England said it believed its evaluation of the tests was to a high standard. The department of health said that Antibody Testing will play an increasingly Important Role as we move into the next phase of our response to this pandemic. Naomi grimley, bbc news. Lets talk now to two of the signatories of that letter dr helen salisbury, a gp and lecturer at the university of oxford, and Professor William irving from the university of nottingham. Thank you both very much forjoining us thank you both very much forjoining us today. Doctor salisbury, tell us a bit more detail about what your concerns are with Antibody Testing because within the e you say you dont actually know what the results mean when somebody has a test. Absolutely. That is the main problem, because the tests have been brought out very fast and they havent had the usual amount of research we would have to really validate a test. We dont know what the results mean, so there are increasing numbers of people who are fairly sure that they have the virus and some who had positive tests for the actual antigen when they were ill, who are getting negative Antibody Test, which is really interesting. Although having a positive test may tell you you did have it. Having a negative test, were not quite so sure about that. And the other thing is, really, that we normally do tests when we know what to do with the answers. And im really concerned that patients who
will understandably want the test will understandably want the test will be looking to gps to both counselled them before they have the test and explain the results afterwards, and that is a really ha rd afterwards, and that is a really hard artand afterwards, and that is a really hard art and it will take a lot of oui hard art and it will take a lot of ourtime hard art and it will take a lot of our time but we also dont have the a nswer our time but we also dont have the answer is to give them. Professor irving, you are nodding vigorously on the last point from doctor salisbury. Does a test have an impact on how someone is managed, a patient is managed at all . That is the whole point of the diagnostic laboratories we have in hospitals, to help clinicians understand what is wrong with their patients and how best to manage them. So when you have a test where the result is negative, it makes no difference. If it is positive, it makes no difference. There isnt really a huge logic to doing the tests in the first place. We are under pressure in the nhs to be careful with resources, to only do tests which
are meaningful, which a clinician can interpret and which will help with patient care. And the Antibody Test fails on those counts. Just to be crystal clear, sorry, we are talking, just to reemphasise about Antibody Testing, we are not talking about testing to find out if somebody has covid i9 at the point at which they are being given the test. Thats right. The antibodies are a response that an individual makes when they get infected with a microorganism, so the presence of antibodies is evidence of past infection, but doesnt tell you anything about whether the patient is currently infected and in this particular instance, doesnt tell you anything either about whether the patient is protected against future infection. So, doctor salisbury, if it doesnt tell you if you are protected against covid i9 again and also you made the point that people who have had covid i9
definitely are getting negative tests, what is the point of asking la bs to tests, what is the point of asking labs to run at the level of capacity that they are being asked to turn the tests around in 2a hours . The Prime Minister has talked about these Antibody Tests being game changers. Are they, in your opinion . Well, they would be if you could say if you have antibodies, you are immune, you are safe, you can do what you like and you wont get it and you wont pass it to anyone else, but we just cant say that because we just dont know that. So everybody really wanted them to be the idea of a immunity passport, you got antibodies, you are safe, but its not true. People will be very confused. We cant, as clinicians, as scientists, we cant really work out a good reason for this sudden everybody can have an Antibody Test rhetoric, because it doesnt make
sense. It does make sense to be doing lots of tests in the context of research, if we can put together who has had symptoms and who has had a positive test of having the virus before, and what do they antibodies look like and what happens next. If we collected all of that data and did some research on it, which people are doing, that would make sense, but just to people are doing, that would make sense, butjust to roll out the test for anyone who would like it, which is really basically what we have been told, doesnt seem to make any sense at all. Picking up on that, is there, as far as you are aware, any sort of structure, methodical structure, to assess if people are being tested for antibodies, where they are being tested, what parts of they are being tested, what parts of the country, to learn, to garner further information from the tests other than somebody having the antibody or they dont. That is the key question and i dont know the extent to which the antibody results are associated with other data about
the gender, ethnicity, age, occupation of the individual. If that was happening, that would be very valuable as a research exercise but if you want to do a Research Study to understand who in the population has been infected, then you do it in a very different way. You do it in a structured way, you account for geography, gender, age, ethnicity and you do a very careful study and that would be very valuable, and that would be a useful way of spending money on Antibody Test. Butjust inviting someone to come in and have an Antibody Test because they would like to know if they have been infected sort of contradicts most of the principles of the Royal College of pathologists performing any diagnostic test. You say there doesnt seem to be an obstruction to the tests and also is the timing wrong . We could do, and we should be doing a proper epidemiological study to work out
what percentage of the population has been infected and that will impact very significantly on all of the modelling of how the epidemic has gone and we can predict how it is going to go. The Antibody Tests themselves are genuine, and i think themselves are genuine, and i think the results are reasonably robust, but they are being applied in the wrong context. They should be a research exercise for epidemiology but theyjust seem to be offered randomly to anyone who wants that to walk in and have a test and i think it could be done better. If there is, doctor salisbury, a second wave of the virus, be it on a larger scale or in terms of localised spikes, arent these tests useful, because if somebody has had one and they are told, yes, you have got some antibodies and there is a second wave and they dont have a recurrence of covid i9, doesnt that potentially show that they have some sort of immunity from the disease . That is a bit of information we really, really need to know whether once you have got some antibodies, how longer last, do they protect you . How long do they last. But i will come back to my colleagues point that we need to do this in a structured way so we can find out exactly the answers to exactly those sorts of really important questions. Just to explore that finally, in a little bit more detail, if somebody has had an Antibody Test now and there is a second wave of the virus, would they need another test, a further test at that point . I will get a thought from both of you, professor irving, do you want to come in first . That is the way we will find out what the antibodies mean, when the second wave comes, we can compare illness and hospital admission and death arising in patients who have antibodies,
against patients who dont. And we will learn a lot from that. It will be important to test individuals overtime, be important to test individuals over time, there is evidence that antibody levels might decline quite rapidly and some people, so you detect them to start with than two months later you cannot find them. There is so much we need to learn, and we do need to be finding this out, but we need to be doing it in a proper, constructed research environment. Anything more on that point, doctor salisbury . environment. Anything more on that point, doctor salisbury . Itotally agree with that and my concern, may be selfishly, as a gp, is that the resources this will take in general practice both in taking the blood and also all of the counselling we need to patients, who want to understand and wont, so im all for testing when we have some structure to doing it, but it is a bit of a mess at the moment. 0k, doctor helen
salisbury and Professor William irving, thanks for talking to us about that today. The housing secretary, robertjenrick, is facing mounting pressure to resign after he released emails and texts relating to a decision to grant planning permission to a one billion pound Housing Development in east london. Mrjenricks decision to approve the scheme, which was later rescinded, came the day before a local infrastructure levy would have added tens of millions of pounds to the cost of the project. The developer, Richard Desmond, subsequently donated £12,000 to the conservative party. Both men have denied breaking any rules. Lets take a closer look at the timeline of events between robertjenrick and Richard Desmond. The pair first met after sitting next to each other at a conservative fundraising dinner on the 18th of november last year. Robert jenrick admitted they exchanged phone numbers. And in a series of texts mrjenrick said good to spend time with you tonight richard. See you again soon i hope. Two days later, a meeting was arranged for december. On that same day, mr desmond sent a text
in which he referred to a new infrastructure charge that was about to be brought in by the labour run council of Tower Hamlets. The charge would have added millions to the cost of the proposed project. Mr desmonds text said we dont want to give marxists loads of dough for nothing. 0n the 15th of december, robertjenrick texted Richard Desmond to cancel their meeting as he needed to be in parliament for the queens speech. 0n january the 9th this year, the housing secretary urged approval of the £1 billion Housing Development. The scheme was approved the next day. 12 days later, Richard Desmond donated £12,000 to the conservative party. The planning permission was rescinded on 22nd may after towers hamlets accused robertjenrick of bias in his decision over his relationship with Richard Desmond. 0ur assistant Political Editor norman smith is at westminster. A lengthy and somewhat complicated timeline of events, robert, sorry, norman, but what do you think the release of the text and the details of the texts between robertjenrick and Richard Desmond adds to the story. Does it add more pressure for those calls for robertjenrick to resign . It certainly raises an awful lot more questions in what is a fairly tangled tale. At its heart is a fairly fairly tangled tale. At its heart is afairly simple fairly tangled tale. At its heart is a fairly simple thought, did this wealthy developer and tory donor get special access to the minister in charge of planning, basically because he was a tory supporter, and the minister was prepared to go along with him. We dont have a definitive answer to that but certainly in terms of how it looks, it looks bad, because we have at the very beginning the two of them sitting down together at a tory fundraising dinner, the developer
showing him on his phone a promotional video of the development, and then after the dinner the minister stays in touch, text the developer to say its nice to meet you and then the developer is pushing for a meeting, and at the end of it all, the minister gives the go ahead to the project, albeit in the end it was overturned and there are a number of new, i think, developments which we now have and first up is that we know that Robert Jenrick the housing secretary stayed in contact with the developer. In other words, he did not put an iron wall between the two of them as you are meant to do. Secondly, we now know that he overrode the advice of his officials to give the go ahead for this development, and thirdly, he was keen to make sure that the approvalfor the project he was keen to make sure that the approval for the project got through before this new Community Levy was imposed by Tower Hamlets council. Now, none of that is a smoking gun. It does not prove wrongdoing, but in the eyes of many, many people, it will leave them feeling uncomfortable, albeit this morning the business minister was strongly defending the housing secretary. Robertjenrick actually defending the housing secretary. Robert jenrick actually promised a select committee he would publish everything around this decision. He himself has said, look, with the benefit of hindsight he might have done things slightly differently. He doesnt think that he was biased in any way, but the perception of bias that allowed this to happen was the reason that robert pulled this application and allowed another minister to determine it. Application and allowed another ministerto determine it. In application and allowed another minister to determine it. In the messages you just read out, interesting, two words. 0ne, viability, and the other, social housing, and robert wanted to see both things actually happen. More social housing being built, more
housing being built, and a viable development. So, damaging in terms of perception, the idea that a wealthy tory can somehow buy access ona wealthy tory can somehow buy access on a planning development, but is there enough here to force mr jenrick to go . So far, its not clear that there is. Labour at the moment does not appear to be demanding his resignation. They believe there are questions to answer. There doesnt seem to be a ground swell amongst tory mps taking the view that his position is now toxic, and perhaps most importantly, it doesnt appear that borisjohnson is minded to launch any form of enquiry or in any way to release or sack him, so as things stand, yes, robertjenrick is damaged. Is he going to have to walk the plank . It doesnt look like it, at least not yet. Norman, thank you very much. Around 2,000 management jobs are being cut at royal mail. The Delivery Service announced the restructuring in order to save £130 million in staffing costs next year. The company has reported a 31 percent fall in annual profits and says it will also reduce Capital Spending by £300 million across the group during the next two years. Earlier we heard from our correspondent