No, I'd rather not read all these articles. You're arguing that tests max out at 95%, can you show me one reputable article that says this. As yet all you've posted is articles claiming accuracy can be as low as 70% but also explaining that this depends on the conditions the tests are being carried out. As I've said repeatedly, I'm not medical expert and if the claims being made by Prenetics are wrong then I'd be interested it knowing this however I'm not going to disbelieve them without reason to do so.
I may be completely wrong but I my uninformed view is that the highest accuracy tests will be either very expensive and or difficult to carry out on large scales, which possibly excludes them from being used in the NHS. I would have thought that these things wouldn't be an issue for the PL when they're carrying out a max of 40 tests at a time and the cost (reportedly £4m) is a drop in the ocean to them.
Anyway, we're starting to get away from the main point. Whether it's low, mid or high 90s, the league will know that there's a chance of players slipping through the net after one test however the chance of having back to back false negatives is extremely small and with twice weekly tests, the chances of a player training for more than a week with corona is pretty much non existent.