-
Oh that's better than I thought. How does that compare with PCR?
I have stuck in my head that last year a survey of LFT done by medical professionals (so presumably more competent at finding tonsils than average public) showed it only picked up 50% cases. Glad if it's much better than that.
hoefla-
Oh that's better than I thought. How does that compare with PCR?
They're completely different things. LFD are designed to be the best thing that can be done at home with a result within 30 minutes. They're also limited to the levels of the virus they can pick up and so they only really test for a certain level of infectiousness rather than any trace levels of infection.
so presumably more competent at finding tonsils than average public
Most of the LFD kits being sent out now only do a nasal swab (and 1" up the nose is as far as that goes), they don't go near your tonsils.
(Reminds me, need to order some more, we're getting through more than a box of 7 a week what with increased testing for our 11yo and ad hoc testing for us two adults.)
-
I have stuck in my head that last year a survey of LFT done by medical professionals (so presumably more competent at finding tonsils than average public) showed it only picked up 50% cases. Glad if it's much better than that.
I remember that survey, I think it was conducted in Liverpool during some sort of LFD pilot.
Since then, several different studies have found that it underestimated effectiveness. Partly I think because people have got better at swabbing themselves over time.
Edit: I think the LFD tests have become easier to use too.
Greenbank
Stonehedge
They’re more than 80% effective at detecting any level of infection and more than 90% effective at detecting those who are most infectious - UClL study a month or two ago.