[quote BabycakesMatlala]@itsgettingwierd well it's not 50% or nothing, is it, because some would be/become symptomatic and then hopefully be caught with self isolation and PCR test. But I agree, it may pick up some extras. My point was a subtler one (which I prob shouldn't have bothered on a thread like this): is it genuinely worth the effort for the number of cases that may be picked up, given the risk that parents and staff may take false reassurance from the tests?
And by the way, 50% was the most generous finding - the study of Birmingham Uni students found it was 3% (not missed off a zero).
What I'm saying is, while there's lots of holier than thou ranting on here, I'm surprised how utterly unaware most posters are that these tests are quite shit, which worries me in terms of families' carefulness.
If you look at fairly eminent people like Professor Jon Deeks, they all question the rollout of this test.
I should add that we have been unbelievably careful and rule-abiding throughout this, self-isolating at the very hint of a symptom. If this were PCR testing, I'd be all for it. I just am concerned about the level of informed consent, and how it will impact on behaviour.[/quote]
You assume people don't know these tests aren't that accurate.
I know that. I still do it twice a week because I know they do have a proven use in a wider context.