ONS just announced weekly infection rate in secondary school aged children is 0.43%.
Yesterday Test-and-Trace data showed 0.047% of LFTs were positive.
How can we get an estimate of the sensitivity of LFTs from this? I’ve come up with sensitivity=10%
Here are my workings
Three issues
#1 0.047% will include LFT false positives – 0.03% according to DHSC, so 0.017% will be LFT true positives.
#2 0.43% will include PCR false positives – lets go for 1 in 1000 (probably less) to be conservative. So 0.33% will be true cases
#3 ONS data are based on number of children, LFT on number of tests. If assume two tests per week (but only ever one positive per child) then double the rate to 0.034%
So sensitivity seems to be about 0.034/0.33 = 10%
Anybody else want to present a version of these figures?
I guess we probably also need to adjust for the asymp / symp spread (not so sure about this as LFTs are claimed to detect the infection before symptoms). If we presume 50% in children are asymptomatic this could double to 20%. Still not thrilling.
The thought that this is probably the best data we have on the sensitivity of Innova in children though is rather terrifying.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Update included electronic searches to end of Sept, and other resource up to mid Nov 2020. Next update is already underway. Many thanks to the great crowd of people involved in putting this together.
2/12
Included both lateral flow antigen tests – data on 16 tests (of 92 with regulatory approval) in 48 studies (n=20,168)
And rapid molecular tests – data on 5 tests (of 43 with regulatory approval) in 30 studies (n=3,919)
Sorry - but there is a dreadful mistake made in computing the sensitivity and specificty of LFT in this report. If you look at Figure 32 (day 1 for example) the estimates of sens and spec are based on a subsample of the study with 364 LFT+ve and 686 LFT -ve. 34.7% are LFT+VE
Results just published to 10th March (;ast Wednesday) 2.8 million tests in secondary school kids, 1324 positives- 0.048% or 1 in 2086. Lowest rate ever observed
Government figures would have predicted around 10,000.
Will post more analysis shortly
Sens=50.1% Spec 99.7% Prevalence of 0.5%
of 2,762,775 tests we would expect 6921 true positives and 825 false positives - nearly 6 times more test positives than have been reported.
To get down to the 1324 positives actually observed, either the prevalence has to be 0.036% (1 fourteenth of the expected rate) - 36 per 100,000
Great that @ab4scambs shows some MPs understand the laws of probability (beginning to doubt that there was one) but this justification why we don't need to PCR kids who have positive LFT sadly starts with a fatal flaw
This is the second time I have tweeted this as one decimal place went for a wander in my first set of tweets. Nothing else changes. Thanks to @d_spiegel for spotting it.
2/8
It presumes that the prevalence to use for Covid infection in these calculations is that in the general population - 0.5% or 1 in 200. And then shows that 30% of those who are LFT+ and then PCR - will still have Covid infection. Can you spot the error?
3/8