Also, given that the prevalence of the virus is still very low, I am assuming (and the article seems to support this) that the test would only be used on people that have some pre-existing risk factor, like exposure to a known infected person, or travel to/from one of the high risk locations. Otherwise (let's assume a FP rate of 1%) you would still be getting a large number of false positives. Even with the assumption that there are a large number of very mild undiagnosed cases.
The reason I bring this up is because I have seen many people calling for mass testing of everyone in the United States, regardless of symptoms or risk factors. I think doing that would be a very big mistake because then you end up with a few possible scenarios:
1. You tell everyone who tested positive without any symptoms/high risk factors that they probably don't have it actually.
2. You end up treating massive amounts of people with potentially risky treatments, or quarantine people for no reason.
3. You have to do lengthy/expensive follow up tests of millions of people and waste valuable time and resources.
I guess 1 isn't a big deal, but then how do you prioritize who to treat given the symptoms alone don't provide a very useful criteria for judging who has it?
Obviously the doctors and scientists working on this know all of this already, but the general public and politicians seem to be demanding mass testing of the entire population, which worries me.