I think that's missing the point, which is that the only way to get the necessary accuracy is to use multiple independent sources of information. It's not whether clinicians are better than tests or vice versa, but that no single datum is good enough.

> This also why I believe human doctors are still unbeatable by AI.

Because you hypothesize that they can rapidly learn new, not very distinctive patterns without much data?

I remember an article early in the outbreak that Chinese doctors found the most reliable diagnosis comes from CT scans. Test was merely the first filter. They tuned the settings to increase scan speed at the cost of resolution and setup a process to scan up to 200 patients a day per scanner. I wonder if this is still best practice that other countries aren't adopting. On the other hand I expect tests to have improved since the early days. There's also the consideration China simply had more CT scanners that could be mobilized to Wuhan which makes this less practical elsewhere.