Rapid, Cheap, Less Accurate Coronavirus Testing Has A Place, Scientists Say
A single test that can give false reassurance sounds bad. But a $10 test for the coronavirus, if repeated daily, would discover real infections, say proponents of such tests as screening tools.
Anybody who has waited for hours in line for a coronavirus test, or who has had to wait a week or more for results, knows there has to be a better way. In fact, the next generation of tests will focus on speed.
But what should the Food and Drug Administration do with a rapid test that is comparatively cheap but much less accurate than the tests currently on the market? A test like that is ready to go up for FDA approval, and some scientists argue it could be valuable despite its shortcomings.
At first blush, you wouldn't want a medical test to be pushing out untrustworthy results. And that's certainly the case for a
