Been seeing news stories about dogs "sniffing out" coronavirus...

[Archae]

There seems to be a lack of skeptical views on this, I've seen how dogs "sniffing out" cancer or other diseases is really spotty.

At best.

Lots of false positives, badly-trained dogs, and dogs "missing" disease.

Just look at the many stories across the US of dogs "sniffing out" drugs in cars and homes, when no drugs are found.

[hlthe2b]

1. That some dogs do so better than others, are trained better than others does NOT prove worthless

in this regard (use of dog's sense of smell to detect certain diseases and conditions in humans) any more than electronic tools for measuring blood alcohol when in the hands of a poorly trained or incompetent COP prove them to be useless or a lab test that fails in the hands of technicians following poor technique is rendered forever questionable. Right now dog use for detecting coronavirus is at the theoretical stage. That they HAVE been proven useful for other diseases and conditions MIGHT make this worth looking into. That hardly constitutes a recommendation to rely on this, rather than validate through consistent and controlled studies.

Your blanket denouncement is as ridiculous--while on the opposite extreme-- as those who point to single "miracle" cures as the end-all solution for a given disease or condition, sans evidence.

[Archae]

2. "Proven" useful?

I've seen articles showing how dogs have given false positives "sniffing out" cancer, or missing cancer completely.

Yes, a badly-trained dog and/or handler can affect the results.

I don't trust police using ONLY dogs to "find illegal drugs," and I don't trust JUST dogs finding disease.

[hlthe2b]

3. There is no lab test, no histopathologist reading slides or radiologist reading radiographs/scans

nor screening test that does not have false negatives. Nor would one expect dogs used to screen for certain cancers or conditions (e.g., hypoglycemia) to ALWAYS be 100% accurate in every circumstance.

You really need to do some research. Obviously your expectations are at a very naive' level when it comes to screening tools, tests, and even the ABSOLUTE validity of our most validated methods for disease diagnosis. None of them are without some degree of failure. Use of dogs, as use of other "screening" methods are just that... "screening".... Even negative results for the best methods require follow-up if clinical signs and symptoms remain consistent with disease or abnormalities. If you were a clinician, you would know just how skeptical one must be for ALL screening tests (e.g., fine needle or punch biopsies/aspirations) if clinical signs are absolutely pointing to a possible malignancy. Any physician, dentist, opthalmologist, or veterinarian who thought they were dealing with a cancerous mass would absolutely take it further, even if a fine needle aspiration or biopsy were negative--yet that is standard of care for initial screening for most small visible lesions. Thus, even where there is evidence for dog detection for some varieties of tumors or conditions, no one is suggesting that be the ONLY screening test and to go no further.

[crickets]

4. My issue with this is that even if it works, by asking dogs to sniff for the virus,

you're asking them to expose themselves to it. Call me a softie, but I have problems with the ethics of doing that.