From The Intelligencer on December 4th:
For much of the pandemic, Harvard epidemiologist Michael Mina has been just about the country’s biggest and most enthusiastic proponent of mass testing. For most of the year, the country has been relying on PCR testing, which is relatively expensive and typically returns results in (at best) a few days. In some places, there has also been rapid molecular testing, which works on the same basis as a PCR test — it looks for viral RNA, and can pick up even very small amounts, which means almost no one receives a false negative result. But for the last few months, Mina has been especially focused on the public-health potential of a different method, the rapid antigen test, which functionally measures infectiousness — rather than infection — and which is extremely cheap and easy to use. The closest analogy is an at-home pregnancy test — not quite as clinically reliable as a pregnancy test in a doctor’s office, but so much more affordable, available, and easy to access that it allows for a massive expansion of testing capacity. In mid-November, Mina argued that large-scale deployment could stop the spread of COVID-19 by Christmas — many months before even the most optimistic timeline of vaccine rollout could be completed.
Here's the interview
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020...hin-weeks.html