3 ms·
You wouldn't go to ER, even as a positive test, unless you needed intensive care. Most cases could be isolated at home.
by rpearl 7y ago
You wouldn't go to ER, even as a positive test, unless you needed intensive care. Most cases could be isolated at home.
- refurb 7y agoThis is the big reason why you don't need to test everyone - the results of the test change nothing. If you have a mild case of Coronavirus and are able to self-isolate, then just do it. Testing and confirming you have it doesn't change things, you'd still be asked to self-isolate. I can see the value in people who are very sick - confirming they have the virus can inform the need for isolation in the hospital.
- noodlenotes 7y agoBut how does anyone know they have a mild case of Coronavirus? It looks just like the cold or flu. Now that there's community spread, you can't assume that you only have Coronavirus if you've recently traveled or had contact with someone with confirmed Coronavirus. People who think they just have the cold or flu are going to maybe stay home a day or two, not self-quarantine for 2 weeks.
- elihu 7y agoA positive test result would indicate to a person that they should remain in isolation for a week or so (or whatever the current recommendation is) after they get better, and not return to work immediately. It might also be useful to have a diagnosis to present to an impatient boss who wants you back at work.
- refurb 7y agoI think the point is, if it becomes endemic, people should self-quarantine even in the absence of a positive test. That's what my employer is doing now. If you're sick, work from home for 2 weeks. Don't come in.
- rpearl 7y agothe results of the test indicate whether quarantine and contact tracing are useful.
- dsq 7y agoDeciding whether to visit elderly relatives?