There should be different CV-19 tests for different statuses.

[no_hypocrisy]

1. Obviously to discover if you currently have the virus, symptoms or no symptoms.
2. To discover if you've HAD the virus and less likely to contract it (pending new information if you can be re-infected).

[hlthe2b]

1. There are.

The antibody test that detects your previous exposure and some level of immunity was slow to be developed and should have been used alongside the antigen (RT-PCR) testing for current infection in a more consistent and appropriate response to a novel virus. It is coming on now and being used county-wide in Telluride, CO to try to establish the true community seroprevalence. A more immediate test for the latter has yet to become widely available in the US, but it will eventually and will be necessary for any science-based decisions about lifting stay-at-home restrictions. Of course, Trump is not going to wait on that, but hopefully, the governors will stand firm.

The latter is based on blood testing--not swabs.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. Thank you. That's heartening.

[Igel]

3. There are a bunch.

Oddly, somebody posted work showing that the PCR test that was used back in january (etc.) had a really high rate of false positives.

Take it. Test negative. And there's a 6 in 10 chance you aren't infected. Woo-who.

There are fast tests hitting the market. One is 2 1/2h hours or so (and not 24-48 hours). Another, I think, is more like 45 minutes.