No, the article isn't talking about sensitivity. We don't actually know what the sensitivity is from the data the article gives us. We are told that lots of people were screened and a small number had a positive result, of which a proportion were actually positive. You can't calculate sensitivity from that because you don't know how many actually positive cases were missed.

This article is talking about precision, which is the proportion of positive results that are true. And it's okay for precision to be awful, especially when the condition is so rare. But it's only okay if the result is communicated alongside a statement saying what the precision is, which it seems these were not.