What an idiotic article written by an ignoramus!
Do you realize that nearly all screening tests are based on similar math? This is pretty standard whether you test for HIV, Hepatitis B, Hep C etc. A good screening test is not expected to be very accurate. It should be able to allow least number of the infected to go undetected even if it means that a large number of uninfected are falsely found to be positive. This antibody test is a screening test. If a person tests positive on a screening test, it is further verified by a confirmatory test which has a high accuracy. For the other mentioned viruses also, that is the function of PCR.
ALSO, tests are tools to enable us to do a BETTER job, not a PERFECT job. This tool STILL has to be used in conjunction with other tools: physical distancing, masks, staying away from people if one is sick and seeking medical help when sick. In an ideal world there should be a perfect test or everyone should stay at home not working. Unfortunately we do not live in that imaginary world. Thus we need to strike a balance between reducing disease spread and getting the economy back on track. Thus screening tests improve our ability to do this because it adds another tool in our arsenal.
The scroll has poor quality journalism. This article only highlights this even further.
What is your solution or recommendation?