Gently Flows the Lateral Flow Test?

I have expressed reservations about the 'cheap and cheerful' Lateral Flow Test (LFT), used to detect Covid-19 infections in the UK. David Hunter (Oxford University), however, is much more positive about their utility (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/19/lateral-flow-tests-uk-covid). Epidemiologists believe that, if everyone did a coronavirus test twice a week and self-isolated, if they were positive, the pandemic would collapse. The trouble is that, many people in the 'gig economy' avoid taking tests, as they cannot afford to self-isolate (financial support for such people is largely non-existent). Hunter maintains that we will never have the capacity to use the 'gold standard' PCR test to monitor Covid-19 infections. He also notes that the PCR is too slow to be used for contact tracing (people have moved on, by the time the results are obtained) or even to confirm a LFT result (a 2nd LFT may be better). Hunter also suggests that concerns over false positives and false negatives can miss the point. The incidence of these 'errors' may depend on the levels of infections in populations. Hunter also suggests that the LFT is best at picking up the virus, when the individual is infectious. In contrast, the PCR may detect the virus after the individual has ceased being capable of transmitting it. In one sense, this would be a false positive. Hunter notes that many of the false positives associated with LFTs, are due to mistaken or inexpert reading of the results. He suggests that a telephone app and/or employing artificial intelligence might help to eliminate these. Perhaps I have under-estimated the LFT?