Replying to the thread.

I have to admit to being more confused than ever now that two people I work with recently tested positive for the virus.

One has a partner who works in a care-home, she tested positive.  He got a test, tested positive.  Both self-isolated for ten days then returned to work.

The second works in IT.  One of his daughters tested positive so again he, his partner, both daughters and his parents self-isolated and all tested positive.  He returned to work after fourteen days.

In both cases, when I asked if they had been re-tested before re-starting normal activity, they said no, they hadn't.  They were both told it would be pointless as they now have the virus antibodies in their system and would again test positive.  (I assume this is a "false" positive).  But as they now had ninety days immunity and were no longer infectious or capable of spreading the virus to others, they were OK to return to work.

That's all fair enough, but with testing now more widespread and results coming back quicker, I ask myself how much of this most recent surge in confirmed cases is due to "false" positives?

The first two lock-downs were never 100% effective.  The two places where the largest numbers of people gathered together in confined spaces, supermarkets and schools, were open with little distancing enforced.  Then we had Christmas with relaxed rules (and from the amount of traffic about even the relaxed rules were widely ignored).

I just wonder how many of these newly confirmed cases are in reality, "false" positives?  Is there any distinction being made, can a distinction be made, between people newly infected and the growing number of people who had the virus up to three months ago, possibly without even noticing it and only now being tested?  

If the new variant is easier to catch, isn't it possible that hospital admissions are rising because distancing and wearing masks just doesn't give 100% protection.  But the apparent huge rise in cases is increasingly more down to false positive test results.  If so perhaps the latest lock-down wasn't the best way forward?

Perhaps better personal protection and more stringent enforcement of the rules would be as effective, would help keep hospital admissions down without another period of social and economic disruption?