Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Got Our Free Lateral Flow Tests On Friday From The Government Site
54 Answers
So far so good, twice a week we do it , it’s a bit like a pregnancy test with a red line haha
Answers
From the link posted: "However, the speed and convenience of these tests comes at the expense of accuracy, meaning care needs to be taken in the interpretati
12:40 Sun 11th Apr 2021
My wife was asked to take a lateral flow test as she was marshalling patients arriving for Covid vaccinations. She tested positive and was asked to go home and self isolate.
When she got home she sent off for a PCR test kit. It arrived, she tested herself and sent it off. 3 days later she received an e-mail to say she was negative, did not and never did have the virus.
She then went back to work. So there is some doubt as to the reliability of the lateral flow tests.
When she got home she sent off for a PCR test kit. It arrived, she tested herself and sent it off. 3 days later she received an e-mail to say she was negative, did not and never did have the virus.
She then went back to work. So there is some doubt as to the reliability of the lateral flow tests.
Seeing as I rarely go out, live out in the countryside and our area has been Covid free for weeks I won't bother. I did have a hospital appt last week and am having an MRI scan tomorrow so perhaps I should! The only person I went near at the hospital was the consultant and I am pleased to say I will be among the first to Christen the brand new scanner at Cromer first thing in the morning. Second jab at the time of Philips funeral!
Seriously, I would only have the tests if I was working or mixing with lots of people.
Seriously, I would only have the tests if I was working or mixing with lots of people.
no we know about accuracy
after the first week ( learning curve) they are as accurate self done as if they were done by a tech
false positive rate is 0.4% - four in a thousand
and so if the prevalence is 2% ( possible) 20 per thou
then the chance of a positive test meaning you DO have the virus - is 20 / (20+4) 0r ... 83% which is pretty damn good
( hey everybardy I have just done a positive predictive value calculation in public! Look! )
the significance of PPV escapes even the editor of the BMJ ( ah Fiona Godlee does her best bless! honest) - so you cd say a modern miracle has unfolded in front of you for free!
after the first week ( learning curve) they are as accurate self done as if they were done by a tech
false positive rate is 0.4% - four in a thousand
and so if the prevalence is 2% ( possible) 20 per thou
then the chance of a positive test meaning you DO have the virus - is 20 / (20+4) 0r ... 83% which is pretty damn good
( hey everybardy I have just done a positive predictive value calculation in public! Look! )
the significance of PPV escapes even the editor of the BMJ ( ah Fiona Godlee does her best bless! honest) - so you cd say a modern miracle has unfolded in front of you for free!
From the link posted:
"However, the speed and convenience of these tests comes at the expense of accuracy, meaning care needs to be taken in the interpretation and communication of results."
Precisely. However, if it makes you feel good, then that is a good reason I guess. If you are happy about the prospect of self-isolating then, again, no problem.
And presumably if you AREN'T happy, then you won't be bothering.
Are the PCR "second opinion" tests free?
"However, the speed and convenience of these tests comes at the expense of accuracy, meaning care needs to be taken in the interpretation and communication of results."
Precisely. However, if it makes you feel good, then that is a good reason I guess. If you are happy about the prospect of self-isolating then, again, no problem.
And presumably if you AREN'T happy, then you won't be bothering.
Are the PCR "second opinion" tests free?
PP.
/////%I am truly shocked that a med can ask why there is general testing in a disease where the carrier rate is 30%////%
I am a simple medic and you are a clever scientist, so what it is worth, here's my contribution:
This thread is all about home testing by the LFT.
How accurate is it?..very accurate when done in centres, not so accurate when done at home.
In general terms 5,000 tests will produce ONE positive and almost half of those positives will be found to be negative.
That is ignoring the negative tests that are false and fail to show the presence of the virus.
Poor odds, but Will pick up some cases.
Is this financially viable? Will it reassure and control the pandemic?
That is the question here, from my point of view.
/////%I am truly shocked that a med can ask why there is general testing in a disease where the carrier rate is 30%////%
I am a simple medic and you are a clever scientist, so what it is worth, here's my contribution:
This thread is all about home testing by the LFT.
How accurate is it?..very accurate when done in centres, not so accurate when done at home.
In general terms 5,000 tests will produce ONE positive and almost half of those positives will be found to be negative.
That is ignoring the negative tests that are false and fail to show the presence of the virus.
Poor odds, but Will pick up some cases.
Is this financially viable? Will it reassure and control the pandemic?
That is the question here, from my point of view.
Peter Pedant // as the tonsil touch would make me vomit profusely.//
"so at work they call you - Linda do they?"
har de har har
"actually you can get over a gag reflex - as my dentist commented when he finally drilled a third molar and said - after 5 years this is easy"
I am better than I used to be but still can't tolerate back of the jaw x rays.
I did wonder if "They would know" If I did a test at home and only poked it up my nose? is there any chance that the result would be useful or would I just get a negative regardless?
"so at work they call you - Linda do they?"
har de har har
"actually you can get over a gag reflex - as my dentist commented when he finally drilled a third molar and said - after 5 years this is easy"
I am better than I used to be but still can't tolerate back of the jaw x rays.
I did wonder if "They would know" If I did a test at home and only poked it up my nose? is there any chance that the result would be useful or would I just get a negative regardless?
//That would apply anyway NJ ?//
Not if you didn't test yourself, it wouldn't.
The point I'm making (well I haven't really made it yet - I was trying to understand your motives) is that the government has not a cat in Hell's chance of getting large numbers of people to take a test when it means they have to self-isolate in the event of a positive result (whether true or false). More than 60% of the adult population has now had one shot of vaccine. More than 10% have had both. There are many people who have worked almost normally throughout the last year and a large number of those simply cannot afford to take time off work on the slim off chance that they may have contracted a virus from which most of them will suffer few, if any symptoms.
Meanwhile, 20,000 people a day arrive into the UK from places where the disease is far more prevalent than here and many of them get on to the Piccadilly Line from Heathrow without a test, simply promising to stay indoors for ten days (which is a bit optimistic since 40% of them state the purpose of their visit as "tourism").
Lots of things "reassure the public" when there is scant evidence that they are actually doing any good. This mass testing exercise (which won't be as "mass" as envisaged) is an enormous waste of money which could be better spent elsewhere and is the latest in a litany of poor decisions taken by a government which is fast running out of fag packets on which to draw up its plans.
Not if you didn't test yourself, it wouldn't.
The point I'm making (well I haven't really made it yet - I was trying to understand your motives) is that the government has not a cat in Hell's chance of getting large numbers of people to take a test when it means they have to self-isolate in the event of a positive result (whether true or false). More than 60% of the adult population has now had one shot of vaccine. More than 10% have had both. There are many people who have worked almost normally throughout the last year and a large number of those simply cannot afford to take time off work on the slim off chance that they may have contracted a virus from which most of them will suffer few, if any symptoms.
Meanwhile, 20,000 people a day arrive into the UK from places where the disease is far more prevalent than here and many of them get on to the Piccadilly Line from Heathrow without a test, simply promising to stay indoors for ten days (which is a bit optimistic since 40% of them state the purpose of their visit as "tourism").
Lots of things "reassure the public" when there is scant evidence that they are actually doing any good. This mass testing exercise (which won't be as "mass" as envisaged) is an enormous waste of money which could be better spent elsewhere and is the latest in a litany of poor decisions taken by a government which is fast running out of fag packets on which to draw up its plans.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.