Fast, Less-Accurate Coronavirus Tests May Be Good Enough

Researchers and public health officials are revising their views on the best methods to detect infections, the New York Times reports, ignoring long-held standards so that the spread of the coronavirus can be more quickly tracked and hopefully contained. These experts say the best chance to rein in the sprawling outbreaks in the United States now requires widespread adoption of less accurate tests, as long as they are administered quickly and often enough. This quantity-over-quality approach has its downsides, of course, and is contingent on an enormous supply of testing kits. Nevertheless, many experts believe more rapid, frequent testing would identify those who need immediate medical attention and perhaps even pinpoint those at greatest risk of spreading COVID-19. Susan Butler-Wu, a clinical microbiologist at USC, laments, "We are so far gone in this country. . . . It's kitchen sink time, even if the tests are imperfect." Of the dozens of coronavirus tests that have been granted emergency use authorization by the FDA, only a handful are quick and simple enough to be run in a point-of-care setting like a doctor's office or urgent care clinic. Such tests are still relatively scarce nationwide.