Effect of variant change on False Negative rate

[I-Bouros]

With a variant change, we would allow to account for the potential increase in the False Negative rate of LFT results if there is variant is less likely to be detected using a home-kit; especially important if we have high asymptomatic transmission as is the case with Covid-19.

Acts as a multiplier on the critical number of samples required N.

[tomcodewizard]

Context

• False-negatives seem to be more likely if taken about 1 - 4 days after becoming infected ¹ (depend on the infection curve passed into the sampler)
• False-negatives are also more likely toward the end of the infection. ¹
• The data on the probability of false-negatives seems to vary wildly. ²³⁴¹

Ideas

• Split into 2 cases depending on where the person is along the infection curve.
• If they are in the central part of the curve, then a significant probability of a false-negative is given.
• Otherwise, (at the ends of the curve or not infected), a smaller probability is given.

• Have a base probability of false-negative.
• If infected, then increase this probability proportional to the infection curve (highest probability at the peak of infection)

Reference Links

Footnotes

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/gos-impact-of-false-positives-and-negatives-3-june-2020/impact-of-false-positives-and-false-negatives-in-the-uks-covid-19-rt-pcr-testing-programme-3-june-2020 ↩ ↩² ↩³

2. https://www.gavi.org/vaccineswork/false-negative-how-long-does-it-take-coronavirus-become-detectable-pcr ↩

3. https://www.cochrane.org/cd013705/infectn_how-accurate-are-rapid-antigen-tests-diagnosing-covid-19#:~:text=9938%20people%20would%20test%20negative,19%20(false%20negative%20result). ↩

4. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8646643/ ↩