Less-accurate tests may not be so bad

One of the biggest criticisms of Covid-19 testing stateside has been its hit-or-miss accuracy. But perhaps beggars can’t be choosers, some scientists argue: Widespread testing is critical, even if it’s not foolproof, to slow the pandemic.

“Even if you miss somebody on Day 1,” one clinical microbiology expert told the New York Times, “if you test them repeatedly, the argument is, you’ll catch them the next time around."

The current gold standard for Covid-19 testing rigor has been to rely on PCR testing. It’s highly accurate, but is time- and labor-intensive, and needs to be completed in a laboratory setting. Rapid point-of-care devices would only be useful, of course, if there are enough testing kits. But the current status quo, as Anthony Fauci puts it, is “unacceptable, period.”