There was never any justification for a lockdown in the first place, let alone continuing it now.

Not knowing the full negative effects of lockdown is some justification, it had to be tried to find out.

BTW I notice that yesterday the UK reported 5,587 positive out of a total of 1,437,257 tests done https://coronavirus.data.gov.uk So 5,587/1,437,257 is about 0.4%, which seems to be about the false positive rate being bandied about.
possibly
If the false negative rate is the same as the false positive then this means that in reality there were probably around 0.4%*5,587 = 22 positive tests yesterday.

As far as I can see, there is no way to use the false negative rate to find whether a positive test result is correct or incorrect. So your equation is suspicious.

What is the official justification for continued lockdown?

I think they say that lockdown limits the spread of sars2 corona virus.

Always been against lockdown but I’ve never held any of the so called “conspiracy theories”. I just felt that governments around the world, and their advisors, simply overreacted and then had no way to backtrack without looking foolish.

I thought the vaccine rollout would have given that excuse.

But now I’m struggling to continue to support that viewpoint.

Whilst I don’t think most of the population needed the jab and I won’t have it, nevertheless the roll out has been fast and well coordinated.

What are they waiting for?

Maybe it’s time to revisit some of those “conspiracy theories”. Or have they become victims of the terror they themselves unnecessarily created ?

So 5,587/1,437,257 is about 0.4%, which seems to be about the false positive rate being bandied about. If the false negative rate is the same as the false positive then this means that in reality there were probably around 0.4%*5,587 = 22 positive tests yesterday.

That's not how the maths work. And you're making assumptions that aren't true.

Yes we're going to have a problem soon as LFD is now used more than PCR and its false positive rate is so much higher (0.32% assessed) but not quite yet. Its roughly 50/50 currently.

You're not factoring prevalence into the calculation. False negative rate is not the same as false positive either (nowhere near). The 2 major tests also have different sensitivity, selectivity and error rates.
Its entirely an incorrect calculation for various reasons.

To do the sums properly you'll need the sensitivity and selectivity of both tests (we only have it for LFD), the operational error rates, the community prevalence (from ONS but its 2 weeks lagged) and other things.

Not very effective then is it. Funny that.