If it only has a high false negative rate and doesn’t have an issue with false positives it could be very useful if taken with regularity.
and if a false negative didn't change behavior relative to no test at all. an example would be someone that never dined out in the current reality, but started dining out with a false negative from these cheap rapid tests. Or if clusters of false negatives had a party or took a vacation when right now they wouldn't do any of those things.
And in all reality these companies wouldn't put the tests out with 50% error rates even if the CDC allowed it, and obviously the lower the error rate the lower the risk. If this guy correct and claiming that they are just as accurate but not as sensitive as PCR tests, then it's probably as infuriating as sys suggests. I'd like to hear the opposing argument though, because there might be some other reason the CDC won't approve that the guy didn't share.