Thus the need for cheaper, quicker tests, even if the accuracy is t that great. TWIV Podcast episode #640 covers this. $1 per day test that quickly gives a result, but perhaps is only 50% accurate.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23881080
"Apparently even the "less sensitive" tests are in fact sensitive enough to catch these who produce a lot of virus. Those who produce a lot of virus have many orders of magnitude more virus RNA present in their samples than those who are in the phase of infection where they aren't so dangerously infective."
Thinking more about it, the most important point I'd add now is:
We should learn not to think about "the test" but about (at least) two different kinds of tests for different purposes:
1) fast tests to reduce the chance of virus spreading. Anybody isolated before managing to spread the virus is better than not testing, so it doesn't have to be too precise. We just have to understand its limits.
2) more reliable tests for clinical purposes, whenever they are needed. Interestingly, even in such scenarios antibody tests could find their use and allow cheaper or faster results, something like this:
https://www.clinisciences.com/en/read/newsletter-26/sars-cov...
E.g. if somebody has symptoms and IgM (or IgM and IgG), that could be good enough of information to decide how somebody is to be treated. One more example where I'd guess nobody needs to wait for a PCR result.
1) Why are you getting tested so often?
2) Where/how are are you getting tested and getting quick results?
Often being: once a week. Not considered often compared to physical contact workers, but considered often compared to work-from-home workers. Heck, even considered often compared to the entire continent of North America.
Quickly being: drive-in test or walk-in test that is done in 5 minutes, results within 3 days, usually within 24h, either by SMS text message or phone call (depending on the test center).
Test center appointments are generally divided based on proximity, there are 4 test centers nearby for me (4 kilometres to max 30 kilometres -- sadly the one closest is usually queued up full for 1 or 2 days). So far my experience has been that they are very efficient; a lot of open space, about 6 people physically there at the most, testing room is about the size of a shipping container, one person doing the tests, one person observing/checking/entering data. The most efficient one was actually in a parking lot next to the hospital that also has a lab where they do mass testing. There is space for about 30 cars, but they regulate the appointments in a way that even when some people come early only 4 cars are there. Half the spaces are blocked/crossed out, entry and exit are made using ramps and zigzags (if that makes sense) so they are very accessible but also naturally prompt people to keep their distance (aside from the stickers/billboards all over the place). Because it's a single-direction flow for both cars and people and the people flow exit ends where the car parking flow starts you never run in to anyone getting in or out.
I’m not sure that you can have a test that’s 50% accurate and errs equally in both directions. At least, I’m not sure what it would mean.