Is that their actual cost or are they subsidized? Also, I thought that even with symptoms the false positive rate was about 30% for rapid tests. If so, just th

Is that their actual cost or are they subsidized? Also, I thought that even with symptoms the false positive rate was about 30% for rapid tests. If so, just that would possibly offset the effect of the best currently known treatment which based on the OPs website is fluvoxamine and the study here says a 32% reduction. But if about 30% of people who have Covid think they don't because of the false positive rate of the rapid test, they won't take the drug early enough and that could offset the effects. And there's all the other issues I brought up too. I still feel even with cheap rapid tests, I'm not sure those are effective and practical enough to bet on them over vaccines. I absolutely think it's great as a complimentary and multi-targeted strategy to fight Covid though. And in some countries without access to vaccines, if fluvoxamine is available, it definitely seems like it can help save some lives, and that's a great thing. It just seems far from a panacea, while vaccines honestly are feeling very close to be a panacea. I think what's more interesting to me with these, is that they can possibly lead to an understanding of the mechanisms at play that create or mitigate hospitalization, and maybe with that understanding we could pin point some new drugs that targets those more aggressively. Definitely hoping to see more research there.