LFTs are more accurate than first suggested

[Iggly]

Can anyone explain why? Is it actually the case they are more accurate now? What’s changed?

My DS keeps testing negative on LFTs despite several classmates having covid and he’s got a cough and feels unwell. Weak and not right. Also a negative PCR taken earlier this week.

I would like to rely on the LFTs and PCR although worrying that maybe the PCR was “too soon”

I hate this paranoia 😂

It's not paranoia. There's an issue with PCR testing. Esp Southwest.

Both DH and I had negative LFTs in the morning and positive by lunchtime. I had 2 PCRs before my result was positive, DH had 2 PCRs before positive, DD1 had 3 PCRs before positive and DD3 had a positive PCR despite negative lateral flow.

DD1 started coughing on Sunday and didn't get a positive PCR until Tuesday.

LFTs have always been good when detecting a positive. A positive is unlikely to really be negative. Not so great at negative... as a negative may really be a positive.

Has anything changed? I don't think so. There may be some research which confirms that the positives really are likely to be positive.

@Lougle

Both DH and I had negative LFTs in the morning and positive by lunchtime. I had 2 PCRs before my result was positive, DH had 2 PCRs before positive, DD1 had 3 PCRs before positive and DD3 had a positive PCR despite negative lateral flow.

Blimey!

I wish I’d had the PCR done a day or two later now. Wondering whether to do another one. I’ll be stunned if he doesn’t get it given so many peers and classmates have and he’s got symptoms.

@nannynick

LFTs have always been good when detecting a positive. A positive is unlikely to really be negative. Not so great at negative... as a negative may really be a positive.

Has anything changed? I don't think so. There may be some research which confirms that the positives really are likely to be positive.

Maybe that’s what the headlines are about and the rate of false negatives hasn’t changed.

Does no-one else think that this shows how many things the government have shouted about as being 'what must be done' and 'the way to do things' have been lacking in any research and ill thought through.

This fiasco with the testing in Wolverhampton has been really played down by the government and in the press. To me it has shown that that there are no checks and balances in place as regards testing because if anyone was looking at and monitoring the data then they would have seen a sudden change that needed to be looked into.

When I called the covid helpline when DS had had 5 strongly positive lfts and 2 negative pcrs I was told that the pcrs were the ones that counted. We are now told that you only need a lft when returning from a holiday overseas however it cannot be an nhs one, it has to be a private one. So are these tests different/more accurate. If not (and I suspect not), why is this?

We continue to be given conflicting information, no wonder everyone has lost interest/doesn't believe the government. They will struggle to enforce Plan B.

They’ve always said tests for travel must be private so as not to use up NHS capacity/free tests. The tests are no better and may (eg in the case of the company that ran the now infamous lab and also provided travel tests) actually be worse…

Nothing’s changed with the LFTs, it’s just that there’s more data and research available now.