I believe they are talking about the new test as being around 93% accurate. Not that great but better than it was. I believe the problem is false positives but I am not certain of that. I have read so much about this bug it is all getting mixed up.
The problem with false positives is baked into the test situation. This is known as the
false positive paradox. Because the rate of infection in the overall population is low, most of the the positive results are going to come back on people who haven't been infected, even it the test is 93% accurate.
Imagine: 100,000 people are tested, maybe 5% of population has been infected, so 95,000 people aren't infected. 5,000 people are. A 93% accurate rate means that 7% are false positives. Seven percent of 95,000 is 6,650 false positives. Thus, even if all of the 5,000 infected people are correctly identified by the test, there are an additional 6,650 people who haven't been infected, but think they have been.
This, of course, only considers the accuracy of the test with regard to false positives. There's also the issue of false negatives to consider, which further messes up the value of these tests on populations where what you're looking for is rare. These tests are great for sub-populations where the rate of infection is higher, but for the general population, not so much. By the way, this applies to HIV and TB testing as well, not to mention having implications in industrial quality control.