From: The social media response to twice-weekly mass asymptomatic testing in England
 | Themes | Sub-themes | Overview |
---|---|---|---|
Barrier of testing | Low perceived risk from COVID-19 | Low perceived severity of COVID-19 | Individuals did not want to engage in testing when they perceived COVID-19 to not be a severe disease. |
 | Low perceived risk of contracting COVID-19 | When individuals perceived they were unlikely to contract COVID-19, they felt it unnecessary to engage in testing. | |
 | Low perceived severity after vaccination | People reported vaccines offering more protection than testing and that it is unnecessary to test after the vaccine. | |
Mistrust in government | Lack of government ability to implement an effective testing programme | There was a lack of confidence the government would be able to implement effective testing. | |
 | Lack of faith in the government handling the pandemic | There was a perception the government had not handled the pandemic well led to a less engagement with testing. | |
 | Ulterior motives for introducing mass testing | Some did not want to engage in testing as they perceived there were ulterior motives for twice-weekly testing, such as to extend lockdown or to suppress freedom. | |
Concern about taking a test | Perception that twice-weekly testing not normal | It was perceived that twice-weekly tests were not normal and concerns over how long the testing policy would last. | |
 | Concern over what tests are used for | There was concern that the tests would be used to collect DNA and personal data. | |
 | Discomfort associated with taking the tests | Engagement in taking tests was negatively impact with people reporting that tests were uncomfortable. | |
 | Perceived health risks | There was concern that the tests would cause health risks (e.g., cancer) that led to people not engaging in testing. | |
Perceived ineffectiveness of tests policy | Perceived inaccuracy of tests | There was a perception that the lateral flow tests were not accurate and would lead to false positives and false negatives. | |
 | Potential negative impact of a negative test result | Some reported tests to be ineffective as a negative test may lead to people being over-confident but a negative test result only reflected your status at the time of testing. | |
 | Perception that asymptomatic individuals will not be infectious | Tests were thought to be ineffective as it was believed asymptomatic individuals do not spread the virus. | |
 | Perception that uptake of tests will be too low | People perceived there would be low uptake of twice-weekly testing. | |
 | Lack of trust that others will test honestly | There was a perception that others would not test honestly and may lie about the results of their test. | |
Perceived negative impact of twice-weekly testing policy | Inappropriate use of public money | There was the perception that the twice-weekly testing policy was a waste of money and directing resources away from the NHS. | |
 | Financial impact of self-isolating | It was perceived the testing policy would not work as individuals did not have financial aid for self-isolation. | |
 | Environmental impact of tests | There was concern over the negative environmental impact of the testing policy. | |
Facilitators of testing | Wanting to protect others | Â | Individuals reported wanting to engage in testing to protect others from getting the virus. |
Positive perceptions of tests | Tests are accurate | Individuals perceived the tests to be accurate. | |
 | Tests are accessible | Individuals perceived tests to be easily accessed. | |
 | Tests are quick | There was a perception that tests were quick to do and quick to receive results. | |
Desire to return to normal | Â | Engaging in testing was encouraged by a perception that testing would help aid returning to normal. | |
Perceived efficacy for reducing asymptomatic transmission | Â | The perception that tests would be effective at reducing the asymptomatic spread of COVID-19. |