Tabarrok reports: “A number of firms have developed cheap, paper-strip tests for coronavirus that report results at-home in about 15 minutes but they have yet to be approved for use by the FDA because the FDA appears to be demanding that all tests reach accuracy levels similar to the PCR test. This is another deadly FDA mistake.”
I speculate that the cheap paper-strip tests might offer a solution to the face mask problem. It would be helpful to know and to be able to prove quickly that you are not infectious, meaning you don’t need to wear a mask.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Fast and cheap are wonderful. ACCURACY is important. And an 80% rate is not unreasonable. – IMO.
LikeLike
So I don’t wear my mask because I am negative.
Head to the store, and get infected by someone who is positive, but doesn’t know it yet, and shuns a mask.
I come on home, and then infect others in my family.
The other issue is that the tests are not even 80% accurate. I didn’t see what the accuracy rate was, but if it were less than the FDA mandate, that means 1 out of 5 tests will be faulty.
My opinion is that until we get a vaccine, masks are needed.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A coin flip is 50% accurate
LikeLike
Are you willing to bet your life, or the life of your loved ones on a coin flip?
LikeLike
RE: “The other issue is that the [paper strip] tests are not even 80% accurate.”
They don’t have to be. Go back an read was Tabarrok says again.
LikeLike
I did, and it says the same thing.
Yes, lots of tests on the cheap sounds good. I understand the accuracy is based on not being sensitive enough to pick non-contagious conditions.
I think it may be effective for general use, but not to get rid of masks. We are having issues today with violent folks attacking clerks over masks. Imagine if this gives a green light to demand access to a store maskless. How are we supposed to believe someone who is pitching a fit.
IMHO
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I think it may be effective for general use, but not to get rid of masks.”
Police could administer the 15-minute test before writing a citation for not wearing a mask. You are no harm to others if you are not infectious.
LikeLike
The point is that you are a threat. After you are checked and think you are clear, without a mask, you can get infected. Bring that home, or to the store or workplace and the contagion continues its “happy trail”.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The point is that you are a threat.”
Are you assuming that non-infectious people spread infection?
LikeLike
No, but asymptomatic ones do. And a test that provides less than 80% efficacy is not worth the paper it is printed on.
LikeLike
We have a sign on the wall of our store, near the front door that reads like this:
We offer three types of service:
GOOD — CHEAP — FAST
You can pick ANY two
GOOD service CHEAP won’t be FAST
GOOD service FAST won’t be CHEAP
FAST service CHEAP won’t be GOOD.
Seems this could apply to the test kits noted, especially the last line.
LikeLike
no no no this is an open invitation to spreading the disease like mad. Tests with more than 1 or 2% false positives and similar false negatives are reckless and worthless.
As it is, even the tests they are using are crap.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You should read the paper Tabarrok bases his post on:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.22.20136309v2
I believe the model resolves Bayesian issues by assuming repetitious testing. Because it takes longer to get the results of the more sensitive test, the benefit of the less sensitive test derives from knowing the test results sooner.
LikeLike
…”knowing the test results sooner.”
Accuracy be damned.
LikeLike