and I heard the same story. I was on a deadline and just now have time to maybe think, but in a few minutes have to go back to trying to figure out what it means to be a teacher. And have Zoom meetings coming up. Argh.
I know that some of the early tests had a 30%+ false negative rate--and I've read that PCR tests are often unreliable.
That may not be true for tests made elsewhere, so I know I'm rethinking some of my assumptions.
At the same time, a lot of media focus is on playing gotcha. "Ah, so you have this nice new thing? Screw you, I'm going to be as pessimistic as possible and find somebody who agrees with me." I fall in the same trap--skepticism serves our interests best, but at some point it's just nay-saying. Abbott is donning a white hat? Shit, can't let that stand. (Of course, the media sometime go the other route, and just manage to navigate an obstacle course of things against their favorites without ever seeing to notice the obstacles. Start with bias masquerading as skepticism and critical thinking and it never ends well.)
https://www.livescience.com/covid19-coronavirus-tests-false-negatives.html is a source I might have used. (Not a source I did use, it doesn't read familiar.)
And if you're into Pro Publica, here ya go:
https://www.propublica.org/article/coronavirus-tests-are-being-fast-tracked-by-the-fda-but-its-unclear-how-accurate-they-are .
The thing is, Pro Publica's purpose is "expose abuses of power and betrayals of the public trust by government, business, and other institutions," and if there's nothing to expose there's no reason to be there. Everybody needs to believe they're important, which means if you dig and don't find an abuse where you know there must be one, you dig until whatever you find can be used to justify the claim that you found abuse of power and betrayal of public trust.
= new reply since forum marked as read