Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
I struggle to understand how testing for the presence of Covid-19 can possibly affect the course of the pandemic. The situation is compounded by the oft-quoted poor accuracy of the lateral flow test.
A test for the presence of Covid-19 carries about the same prognostic capability as that of a breathalyser test. Even if 100% accurate, which is unachievable, all one can say is that there was insufficient virus captured by the test at the time of testing, to turn it positive in the same way that the breathalyser requires a certain amount of alcohol in the breath to turn in a positive result. Just like a negative breathalyser today will not stop me from driking and driving tomorrow, and may give false reassurance on the amount I can drink before achieving illegal amounts of breath alcohol, so the negative Covid-19 test does not stop me catching the virus tomorrow or incubating the virus today to reach the threshold for positivity tomorrow.
What is alarming is that it is suggested that actions can be taken on the basis of these results, ignoring their lack of any prognostic value.
Competing interests:
No competing interests
13 January 2021
Philip Bolton
Semi-retired GP and Public Health Medicine Consultant
Re: Covid-19 mass testing facilities could end the epidemic rapidly
Dear Editor
I struggle to understand how testing for the presence of Covid-19 can possibly affect the course of the pandemic. The situation is compounded by the oft-quoted poor accuracy of the lateral flow test.
A test for the presence of Covid-19 carries about the same prognostic capability as that of a breathalyser test. Even if 100% accurate, which is unachievable, all one can say is that there was insufficient virus captured by the test at the time of testing, to turn it positive in the same way that the breathalyser requires a certain amount of alcohol in the breath to turn in a positive result. Just like a negative breathalyser today will not stop me from driking and driving tomorrow, and may give false reassurance on the amount I can drink before achieving illegal amounts of breath alcohol, so the negative Covid-19 test does not stop me catching the virus tomorrow or incubating the virus today to reach the threshold for positivity tomorrow.
What is alarming is that it is suggested that actions can be taken on the basis of these results, ignoring their lack of any prognostic value.
Competing interests: No competing interests