I have only read the abstract of this article because that is all that is directly available from the link provided; I have also requested a copy of the whole article from the authors. As I understand it, there are many different RT-PCR tests for the SARS-COV-2 virus on the market, and it is not clear that they all behave the same with regard to their FP (False Positive) and FN (False Negative) rates. There are also confounding influences such as cross contamination and cross reactivity that assert themselves when these tests are used in the real world as opposed to when they are evaluated in a controlled laboratory setting as would be the case for characterization testing.
Similar concerns have been raised with regard to the antibody tests used to ascertain whether the immune system of individuals have been challenged by the coronavirus in the past. I believe some of these antibody tests, which are serological tests, use finger prick blood samples as opposed to venipuncture blood samples. Unfortunately, it has been known for decades that these two types of blood samples are not equivalent both for the reasons of quantity and quality. You, no doubt, remember that this was one of the reasons for the inaccuracy in the test results obtained by the Theranos desktop mini laboratory see,
John Carreylou; Bad Blood, Secrets and Lies in a Silicon Valley Startup; Alfred A. Knopf; 2018; pp. 157, 171, 181, 219, 230-231, & 294.
It may be quite a long time before we have a clear picture on the efficacy of these various tests from various manufacturers.
An important issue with the real-time RT-PCR test is the risk of eliciting false-negative and false-positive results. It is reported that many 'suspected' cases with typical clinical characteristics of COVID-19 and identical specific computed tomography (CT) images were not diagnosed