Walmart, Kroger Raise Prices of Covid-19 Test Kits (wsj.com) 122
Prices are going up for some of the cheapest and most popular at-home Covid-19 test kits in the U.S. From a report: Walmart and Kroger are raising their prices for BinaxNOW at-home rapid tests, after the expiration of a deal with the White House to sell the test kits at cost for $14. The two U.S. retail giants and Amazon.com Inc. agreed with the Biden administration last summer to discount the tests, which are made by Abbott Laboratories and generally cost $24 or more for a box with two tests.
BinaxNOW, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is among the most commonly used over-the-counter, rapid antigen tests, which have been in high demand as the highly contagious Omicron variant spreads across the U.S. The deal with the White House expired in December, and Walmart said this week that it is raising the kits' price to $19.98 a box. Kroger now sells them for $23.99. The BinaxNOW tests aren't currently available on Amazon.
BinaxNOW, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, is among the most commonly used over-the-counter, rapid antigen tests, which have been in high demand as the highly contagious Omicron variant spreads across the U.S. The deal with the White House expired in December, and Walmart said this week that it is raising the kits' price to $19.98 a box. Kroger now sells them for $23.99. The BinaxNOW tests aren't currently available on Amazon.
Bit pricey? (Score:5, Informative)
Here in the Netherlands we buy self tests for about 3 euro a piece...
29,50 for 10: https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/10... [bol.com]?
Re: (Score:2)
Welcome to a story about America, just like America itself it is full of WTF.
Best land on the planet and we have zero appreciation for it as a nation.
Pretty shitty back story though :D
Re:Bit pricey? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You can still get them for free from supermarkets as well.
Re:Bit pricey? (Score:5, Interesting)
The short answer is that the Biden administration decided that the existence of vaccines meant that the pandemic was over and the need for testing had ended. The US basically spent the spring and summer of 2021 dismantling the ability to create or run tests of any variety, be it at-home or PCR.
Where I live in the US right now, and it's a blue state, at-home test kits sell out in seconds and the earliest you can schedule a PCR test is about a week out, if you're lucky. Maybe within six days.
No one within the government, at any level, local, state, or federal appears to care about this, in either party.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Bit pricey? (Score:3)
Re:Bit pricey? (Score:5, Informative)
Why does it matter?
If Antarctica, a place with absolute border control can't stop the spread of COVID, how can places with transient workers, visitors and a roaming population possible stop it?
Antarctica is FULLY vaccinated as well.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly! And furthermore, with Omicron being "extremely mild," what is the point of futilely trying to prevent the spread of it at this point anyway? The pandemic is over. Yeah, sure, you might get sick, but you'll get through and life will go on.
Re: (Score:2)
there is exactly zero money in that plan for pharma, and zero additional authority granted to the executive; it's a non-starter right out of the gate.
Re: (Score:1)
> the Biden administration decided that the existence of vaccines meant that the pandemic was over and the need for testing had ended
Do you have evidence for this claim?
Re: (Score:2)
You ignored this:
The true value of self-test kits is still highly debated, by the way. The concern that they will create a false sense of security is a real factor, and whether that overrides the benefits of wide-spread testing is still unknown. I see a lot of pundi
Re: (Score:3)
I think what you say is mostly accurate. The sad fact, though, is that if we had 90% vaccination rate here in the U.S. (as we have for lots of other vaccine-preventable illness), we probably wouldn't need so much t
Re: (Score:2)
I'm willing to split the difference.
The low vaccination numbers are on the leadership of the GOP not being leaders and telling people to get vaccinated / boosted. Instead, they pander to the most ignorant asshole covidiots who would rather cry about the vaccine being "experimental" while eating veterinarian horse paste than take one of several FDA-approved vaccines that have been administered to literally over a billion people. These are the same fucking morons that boo their orange savior when he publicl
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Here in the Netherlands we buy self tests for about 3 euro a piece...
Same here. Depending on where you buy, it works out at 2.50 to 3 euro per test.
And if you are a close contact of a confirmed Covid-19 case, the health service will give you free antigen testing kits.
Re: (Score:3)
That's if you don't get them given. A lot of professions give them out to their staff. Mind you I did just come back from Austria, where you walk into any shop or petrol station, scan your healthcare card and get given an 8pack of test. They are also home PCR tests none of this crappy anti-gen pick your nose bullshit.
Home PCR tests (Score:1)
aren't. You collect your sample at home, mail it to a PCR lab, and wait until it gets processed. Which, given the load, may or may not happen soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Which, given the load, may or may not happen soon.
Turnaround time is incredibly consistent. On the 2pm pickup you'll get your results between 10pm and midnight for the following day. For the 9am pickup you'll have it before close of business.
Re: (Score:3)
> crappy anti-gen pick your nose bullshit.
Check out the literature on this. Rapid antigen tests do a pretty good job giving results that correlate with infectiousness. Infectiousness is what we care about, not whether it's possible to find fragments of viral RNA.
Not to mention that for a given budget you can do a lot more RATs than PCRs, and quantity has a quality all its own in public health as well as in warfare.
Re: (Score:3)
But you had around two days to infect coworkers. And this is in healthcare, where they will prioritize us for testing. I've heard at least half a dozen of those stories in the past wee
Re: (Score:2)
Check out the literature on this. Rapid antigen tests do a pretty good job giving results that correlate with infectiousness. Infectiousness is what we care about, not whether it's possible to find fragments of viral RNA.
The literature is quite clear on this. Rapid antigen tests do a shithouse job of detecting COVID in a symptomless patient. They are also are generally less accurate overall, and slower to detect the virus (based on when you have been infected) There's a reason most of the governments of Europe will require you to take a PCR test during your sickness, even if you have an antigen test already the PCR test is used for confirmation. There's a reason why different time rules are applied for the validity of the a
Re: (Score:3)
Here in Germany the price is less than USD$2 for one self-test kit. (EUR 1.75).
https://www.aldi-sued.de/de/p.... [aldi-sued.de]
Don't know what they are doing in the USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know what they are doing in the USA.
1) . . .
2) Profit!
Re: (Score:2)
Don't know what they are doing in the USA>
Answer: Failing, spectacularly. Again.
Next question?
Re: Bit pricey? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Here in the Netherlands we buy self tests for about 3 euro a piece...
29,50 for 10: https://www.bol.com/nl/nl/p/10... [bol.com]?
A large amount of that is subsidised by the state in the Netherlands... And I'm not saying that is a bad thing at all, if taxes should be going anywhere it should be to the health of the citizenry.
The UK taxpayer subsidises COVID tests via the NHS which provides them for free, however if you want one for travel purposes you'll have to get one privately. They cost about £15-20 for the LFTs and &;pound;40+ for PCRs. Most Brits don't have an issue with this as NHS resources shouldn't be used for l
Why Wouldn't... (Score:2)
If testing is important, why wasn't someone on top of this "dael" so that it could be extended while the need for test kits is so huge.
This makes no sense to me -- weekly testing for non-vaccinated employees but neither the employer or the employees can find test?
And Biden hasn't even signed the contract for 500 million home test kits yet.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
"Why wouldn't the Biden Administration renew this "deal"?"
Perhaps because getting a rapid response is hard in a large bureaucracy. Maybe they will, who knows.
If we had a Trump Administration this deal wouldn't even exist to renew, nor would the population have received vaccines.
"If testing is important, why wasn't someone on top of this "dael" so that it could be extended while the need for test kits is so huge."
How do you know there wasn't someone? If there wasn't, why assume it's because testing isn't
Re: (Score:2)
The $1.9 trillion Covid relief deal, Getting people vaccinated, lowering unemployment
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And they've done that how exactly? And to what measurable benefit?
For much of 2021 we were told that it was a "pandemic of the unvaccinated", if you get the jabs(s) you can stop wearing a mask and get back to normal life because you can't get the virus... none of which turned out to be correct.
I have family in multiple states right now who are sick with the virus, all of them vaccinated with 2 or 3 shots (depending on age)... it's as if the admin oversold how they were going to shut
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The current administration wasn't in power in 2020 and has always been for taking vaccines recommended by medical professionals, maybe you're confusing it with the anti-vax rhetoric from the Trump administration.
It still is the pandemic of the unvaccinated, unfortunately the vaccines aren't 100% effective against the newer variants, but at least it prevents most hospitalizations and deaths
Re:Why Wouldn't... (Score:5, Insightful)
Right, so you take an out-of-context quote about not trusting Trump with medical advice, then ignore all the anti-vax stuff coming from Trump. You might have a point if it were Biden supporters that weren't getting the vaccine, but that's very clearly not the case so we can safely say that a couple quotes about not trusting vaccine advice from Trump have not had an effect on vaccination rates.
If everyone was vaccinated, the hospitalization/death rates would be way down. Maybe we would still have take other measures against it, but in general people would survive just like a flu. When people say it's "pandemic of the unvaccinated", they aren't saying that vaccinated people aren't ever catching it, it's that the unvaccinated people are getting it and suffering at extremely higher rates.
Something like 75% of hospitalizations for covid around here are unvaccinated while they make up less than 25% of the population.
It's unfortunate that one party decided to campaign against public health. There used to be a time when both parties would trust the advice of medical experts rather than suggesting about how nice it would be if we could get bleach in people
Re: (Score:1)
Funny... I mentioned that later in my post... and also how amazing it is how you forgive such activities for some but not others... it's as if you're unaware of the double standards to which you subscribe. You really should spend some time reflecting on the kind of bubble you live in. Let me educate you a bit further...
Dunno if you heard the news... he seems rather pro
Re: (Score:2)
Dunno if you heard the news... he seems rather pro-vax, even getting booed over it recently
He might not have outright told people to not take vaccines, but he supported anti-vax people including re-tweeting (when he had that ability). A study showed him to be the "main anti-vaccination influencer [psypost.org]"
Now we see where the willing racism so many are wil...blah blah
And you base that all on... what exactly?
It's true that minority communities are often less trusting of government and often have language barriers or other problems, but that's the same across political affiliation. It's a fact that people that lean republican are less likely to be vaccinated than people that lean democrat in all categories:
Re: (Score:2)
Riiiight... and 'defund the police' doesn't mean 'defund the police', it means "put money into other programs"... it's funny how so often very clear words are used to campaign for things where the actual claimed goal is so different. Why not just use clear words and phrases? The English language is capable of that... or more often, are the speakers simply duplicitous?
Forgot to respond to this one:
These are just soundbites or slogans. They need to be short to get people's attention so they remember. Unfortunately people don't like to listen much longer than a couple seconds so when people explain how the vaccination rates are affecting the general population or how money to police departments should be allocated, they get bored and stop listening
Re: (Score:2)
Again, your double standard at play again. The current occupant of the White House and the backup flat out said they wouldn't take a vaccine if suggested or approved by the previous occupant (while you blame me for ignoring other comments) and created some of the earliest mass media pushed vaccine hesitancy, while you focus on Trump's... promotion of 'anti-vax people
Re: (Score:2)
That's the claim by *some*...but also ignores history & reality.
"Pigs in a blanket, fry em like bacon" is also short and gets attention... and not seen on as many protest signs or shouted as much... but also more emotionally driven. It's as if one is used more often than the other so it seems nicer sounding and less confrontational. Were they focus group tested? Maybe... but there is no single & off
Re: (Score:2)
Again, your double standard at play again. The current occupant of the White House and the backup flat out said they wouldn't take a vaccine if suggested or approved by the previous occupant (while you blame me for ignoring other comments) and created some of the earliest mass media pushed vaccine hesitancy, while you focus on Trump's... promotion of 'anti-vax people' on Twitter, a service most Americans are not on... while ignoring his words saying get the shot in larger venues?
He said he wouldn't take something recommended by Trump, he would take something recommended by medical professionals. Do you have any evidence people have been less likely to vaccinate because of those statements? Any studies? Testimonials? Nothing?
Thank you once again for confirming your racism, assuming that what?... half of blacks in California have language issues or 'other problems' which see them not getting the shot? Again, you and this administration don't care about these peoples lives it seems. The soft bigotry of low expectations is a sick thing.
Not sure what you're pushing at here. Are you making a statement that vaccines are being witheld from minorities? Seems like you're just seeing that Republicans are not getting the vaccine so you're trying to connect that to a subset of Democrats, but the nu
Re: (Score:2)
Things like "Believe in America" or "Yes We Can" work for presidential campaigns because they're vague, but for a movement, it needs to be something a little more specific. "Reallocate public safety funding" might be more accurate, but it doesn't really flow off the tongue as well
Re: (Score:2)
oh my. need some automation to get thru this post.
% cat ${THIS_ARTICLE} | calculate_trumper_factor
0.867
ok. that's all I need to know.
see, automation saves a lot of time. didn't need to read that crap.
Re: (Score:2)
Not just straw-manning, lazy straw-manning.
It's funny... the right says "the left can't meme", in part, because so many left leaning 'memes' are walls of text which don't actually address the point... and when someone you perceive as not a leftist someone takes the time to address point for point what is being said... you're too lazy to even respond directly.
I'd think about adopting some of your methods... but I prefer thinking and reasoning and conversation, and not the sort of laziness you engage in.
Re: (Score:2)
It is time to turn off your emotions and look at numbers.
History of vaccine preventable disease. The numbers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
How herd immunity works. The numbers. https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Now, think about a crazy concept called TIME.
Vaccination gets us to herd immunity in less TIME. Vaccination reduces the amount of TIME someone can spread and therefore the PROBABILITY of spread decreases. Vaccination does not prevent infection. Vaccination prevents severe disease and
Re: (Score:2)
Funny you mention that... I have, you... not so much.
505 subscribers... I'm familiar with both topics... what's the point?
Re: (Score:2)
I can see you're *very* determined with your rehabilitation attempts of Trump, which tells me a lot.
"just like Biden" "just like Biden". You are missing the point.
You assert you are familiar with both topics (benefits of vaccines, herd immunity), and yet display little understanding of them.
"The benefits of anti-bodies...got utterly discounted...". sounds ridiculous. And you say nothing of T-Cells. How can this make any scientific sense? Anti-bodies naturally contract over time. Notice how TIME is
Re: (Score:2)
You keep seeing things which aren't there... but go on...
Which doesn't actually disprove anything of what I said... interesting.
Display little understanding *to you*. It's not my job to convince you that I know what I'm
Re: (Score:2)
Vaccinated people stay out of the hospital and morgue relative to unvaccinated people. Level of evidence: high.
Vaccinated people are less likely to spread if they get infected anyway. Level of evidence: preliminary but from multiple sources.
I always kept wearing a mask, because I understand the difference between 95% and 100%, and because it's not 95% any more.
Re: (Score:1)
You're also falling into the correlation vs causation trap.
Can you can show (or point to) a causal link between the two?
I've seen plenty of anecdotes, and reports of studies noting a relationship, but not a causal one. There are other externalities usually not addressed in the mass media reporting which can affect the rates.
Note you didn't say "Vaccinated people stay out of the hospital and morgue
Re: (Score:2)
You just contradicted yourself. Not a good way to prove me wrong.
Either I am a liar who knows the truth and am deliberately misleading or I didn't hear or understand what was actually said so genuinely believe what I said, even if wrong.
Those are the two options you provided, one or the other not both. Which is it?
Of course, there is a third option I did listen to and understand the words and am accurately summarizing.
Do you want me to provide some more context and quotes? Or would you prefer to keep mind r
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well what's the fucking hold up? Are you telling me that the President of the United States is incapable of signing a piece of paper directing the Department of Health and Human Services to immediately purchase and distribute 500 million tests to the public? Is DHS incapable of reading an executive order and complying?
It's one thing if the manufacturing capacity doesn't exist to fill the order. It's a whole different thing if it takes literal weeks to get the order in to begin with.
It's a fucking shit sh
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
My guess is lobbyists were involved so profits could be maximized. Other civilized countries don’t worry about healthcare turning a profit.
I don't get it (Score:4, Insightful)
How is it that the world's richest country can't afford to give rapid test kits to its citizens for free?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because the word's richest country is broke with $29.6T in debt [usdebtclock.org]?
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
Sophisticated investors are falling over themselves to lend the US government money at favorable rates. They don't do that with "broke" lenders.
Re: (Score:2)
I dunno about you, but I'm far from being wealthy, and yet, I benefited from those tax cuts.
I like keeping more of my own hard earned money.
If I recall, those tax cuts generated more and more revenue for the Feds due to increase in jobs (especially in the minorities that historically had higher unemployment), and businesses.
That's quite a presumption! (Score:1)
You seem to assume that the US Govt owns everything in the USA, including the cash we all think we earn when we go to work, and that a tax cut is therefore an "expense".
That's an inversion from what the founders of the nation created.
When government spends its money, that's an expense. When it cuts it's spending that's a cut. When it spends more than it takes in, that's a deficit. When it takes money by force from its citizens, that's revenue. When it takes less from its citizens, that's NOT an expense - th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a fully vaccinated 8-year-old nephew who is currently ill thanks to this bug... I'll send he and his parents your love.
Re: (Score:2)
I would posit that he has a very small if not negligible chance of serious illness or death.
Re: (Score:2)
Agreed... but that's not the point.
The AC is talking about people "getting what the deserve"... to which I note my nephew is not fine (being sick), nor his family having to lock down and deal with it, and asking the implicit question of "did an 8-year-old and his family deserve that?"
Re: (Score:2)
Ahh, another sociopath. No wonder you're posting AC.
Earlier I explicitly said (emphasis mine right now):
Basic reasoning would allow a reader to discern that in all likelihood, for a kid to be vaccinated, the parents would be as well... but that's not the problem.
The problem is with too many is that when they hear or think of someone being ill, in their minds there is but a simple binary choice/question: "but did they deserv
Re: (Score:2)
I wasn't explicit enough:
Bad things in life happen.
Some, a person may have a direct or indirect hand in causing as it relates to themselves or those near them.
Others are far outside of our/their control.
A mature and reasonable person will have sympathy in the vast majority of cases.
Sociopaths and other ill-functioning people (who need serious help, and for who I have sympathy) are quick to cast blame and hostility upon those who may or may not had a direct influence on their situation.
Re: (Score:2)
I've been more entertained by the excuses some give for why they feel they need to stay in line for tests.
- Some are ill and want to know what they have: Sure, probably a good idea... just please stay away from others. (Though isn't it funny/annoying that if you go to the dr for something similar, they test you for this or that and if they don't get a positi
Re: (Score:2)
Mostly because wealth and competence aren't necessarily correlated.
Re:I don't get it (Score:4, Informative)
It benefits society?
Re: (Score:3)
We pay enough in taxes that some shit should be covered by that tax money rather than just being funneled into political elbow rubbers' pockets for seemingly nothing. It's never free.
Re: (Score:2)
Because free or low-cost testing leads to faster isolation, which leads to less transmission of the disease, which leads to lower case counts, which means less treatment.
Less treatment means less money being paid out through government-paid health insurance such as Medicare, or the Covid bills passed through Congress.
Ergo, free testing means saving the government (and thus, the taxpayers) money.
Ever think about that one?
It's the American way! (Score:2)
Re:It's the American way! (Score:4, Interesting)
Rapid antigen tests can cost as little as $2 each to make [reuters.com], according to Mologic, one of the largest British testmakers. But in the United States, bidding wars between health systems, state governments, and employers have contributed to much higher prices.
Re: (Score:1)
Hooray, free market!
Rapid antigen tests can cost as little as $2 each to make [reuters.com], according to Mologic, one of the largest British testmakers. But in the United States, bidding wars between health systems, state governments, and employers have contributed to much higher prices.
Yes, hooray. Because while they may be cheap to make, there is a limited quantity of them, and if it costs $20 instead of $2 to get one, then maybe those "health systems, state governments, and employers" will carefully think how to allocate them, and how many they actually need, instead of giving them to anyone who sneezes, causing shortages for serious matters elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, hooray. Because while they may be cheap to make, there is a limited quantity of them, and if it costs $20 instead of $2 to get one, then maybe those "health systems, state governments, and employers" will carefully think how to allocate them, and how many they actually need, instead of giving them to anyone who sneezes, causing shortages for serious matters elsewhere.
Sounds like someone has never heard of "asymptomatic spread" [uchicagomedicine.org], "surveillance" [cdc.gov], or "public health" [cdc.gov]. You might note the lack of a "bidding war" step [healthaffairs.org] in South Korea's successful national testing strategy [91-divoc.com].
Re: (Score:2)
BUT THERE SIMPLY ISN'T ENOUGH KITS.
Dude, they're like Doritos, they will make more.
People won't waste it with frivolous testing
There is no such thing as a "frivolous" COVID test right now. If you feel you need to know, then you need to know. People might be hording them, but that's just "free market" BS.
Even for Bidet voter?
Whatever [youtube.com], dude.
Re: (Score:1)
BUT THERE SIMPLY ISN'T ENOUGH KITS.
Dude, they're like Doritos, they will make more.
Who? Fairies? Because, I can guarantee to you, if some communist moron caps the price of a kit at what it costs to make them, those "greedy capitalist pigdogs" will not make them. And somehow I don't see anyone else stepping up.
Re: (Score:2)
And somehow I don't see anyone else stepping up.
You already have the link, bro. If you aren't seeing it, it's because you have willfully chosen to keep your eyes closed.
It's only money (Score:2)
cha ching
cha ching
Wait a minute... (Score:3, Informative)
Oh yeah, anyone remember this?
Maker of Popular Covid Test Told Factory to Destroy Inventory [nytimes.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Back when the country seemed solidly in the "We're done with the pandemic, lets party" mode. Can you imagine the outrage if the government had spent a trillion plus dollars buying tests no-one wanted at that point?
You don't need a test... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Not everyone who carries & spreads this or any other disease is aware of their having it. Staying home when sick from the flu or a hangover is wise counsel yes... of course, if a person can't easily say "do I have ____?" or "did I really drink *that much* last night?" ... it can be difficult to gauge if one should truly stay home, doubly so if their employer or others may not easily allow their absence.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe don't get roaring drunk on a work night?
What about during the day while at work? Asking for a friend who is most definitely not me.
Re: (Score:2)
Getting roaring drunk at work is tacky. You're supposed to just get tipsy, or "functioning alcoholic", as you prefer.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember COVID's superpower, which is to spread from asymptomatic people.
Your advice would make the world better. Sick people staying home is desirable. We still need testing to reduce the number of infections from silent carriers, though.
Re: (Score:2)
... if you're sick, stay your ass home and keep away from people. Nobody wants covid or whatever else you have.
Careful. Next you'll be talking about introducing mandatory sick leave. And from all the people who no nothing about the rest of the world that means SOCIALISM.
If you're not talking about mandatory sick leave then your plight is meaningless. People do what they need. If you don't provide them an alternative they don't care what you say. Take a look at the Netherlands and their booster shot. The rollout of the booster shot was done by year of birth which means that people born in the 90s haven't been able t
OMG Prices went up (Score:1)
How exactly is this news for nerds?
Did Walmart cause this inflation ? (Score:2)
How accurate are they with Omicron? (Score:2)
With RT-PCR, there is a check on 3 or 4 genes to make sure that exact sequences exist.
With Omicron, because of many mutations to the spike protein, that segment is negative on PCR.
And that is helpful, since an SGTF (S-Gene Test Failure) indicates that (in January 2022) this is Omicron.
What does BinaxNOW check for? If it is the spike gene, then it may be a false negative.
What about other lateral flow tests?
Anyone knows?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know it is an antigen test.
My question is which antigen (protein)? Spike? Nucleocapsid? Something else?
Here in Ontario, the province is distributing BTNX RapidResponse [btnx.com], which is for the nucleocapsid protein.
Which means that it still has a chance of catching Omicron in action, since the N-protein has not significantly changed in that variant from the ancestral strain.
Obviously, the usual caveats of accuracy, false positives, ...etc. still apply, since these tests are not as accurate as PCR.
Abbott's BinaxNO [www.global...are.abbott]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I am wondering how useful these tests are on their own.
The BinaxNOW web site I linked to says: "Based on the interim results of a clinical study where the BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Self Test was compared to an FDA authorized high sensitivity SARS-CoV-2 test, BinaxNOW COVID-19 Antigen Self Test correctly identified 84.6% of positive specimens and 98.5% of negative specimens."
Here is the background.
The provincial government here in Ontario was asleep at the wheel, and did not distribute enough rapid test kits
Re: (Score:2)
Wow (Score:2)
Misleading headline (Score:1)
Should be "Price controls mandated by White House expire, returning to retailers the ability to cover costs on Covid tests".
I understand the good intentions here, but the road to hell is paved with those, and messing with the laws of economics, even on a small scale, has repercussions.