You have to wonder how much value it really adds.
47 of 53 cancer studies cannot be replicated. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-cancer/in-cancer-science-many-discoveries-dont-hold-up-idUSBRE82R12P20120328
Only 14 of 67, or 21%, of published, peer reviewed studies can be replicated. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-science-cancer/in-cancer-science-many-discoveries-dont-hold-up-idUSBRE82R12P20120328
Around these parts, lots of people will say that some study showed their preferred postion is correct so suck it libtard or whatever. I just laugh. That's not how it works.
The attempt to develop a lab test for COVID19 is interesting. To evaluate your lab test, you must have a gold standard to compare to. You need to know the actual DNA sequence. But they don't even know if there is a single strain, or multiple. And even if they have a gold standard to compare to, evaluating their lab test takes months long experimentation, not just some overnight guess based on gut feel. Science is about data, not hurried press conferences. In a crisis, a 60% solution becomes a 99% solution. The media thinks science is just magic, and it doesnt' work that way.