3 ms·

The Dutch criteria, at the moment, include that you have to have a fever (38 or up), or respiratory complaints, and having been to any one of the Northern Itali

by roel_v 7y ago

The Dutch criteria, at the moment, include that you have to have a fever (38 or up), or respiratory complaints, and having been to any one of the Northern Italian provinces. Rome is not one of them. Your friend being denied a test has nothing to do with whether or not she's registered. She doesn't fit the criteria for getting tested. edit I also think you should explain this to her. I understand and recognize that not all bureaucratic procedures are equally sane or understandable, but in this specific case, she's being treated as she should be ('should' as in 'what is decided is the best', not as in 'what in a few years time we will determine would have been the best'). There is no reason for her to be jaded or put off by anything health related - people have reasons to become cynical about government services, but this is not one of them. Unfortunately circumstances like this turn people off from central measures, which then undermines future global population health, much like anti-vaxxers. Consider this your opportunity to make a tiny contribution to a well-informed citizenry :)

atoav 7y ago
I told her that (reasons why not everone can be tested) as well, but the thing that baffled her was that the lady on the phone said (or implied?) the reason she cannot be tested was that she wasn't registered. I once worked in a callcenter myself and auch things can happen quickly especially if you are overworked an in brain-melt territory.
droithomme 7y ago
They should test her. She might have it. They have the testing capacity. Your opinion on this is incorrect. If Netherlands continues with this policy they are following in the horrific missteps of the US in restricting testing. Some homebody with symptoms that don't match? Put them at the bottom of the queue for testing if there is limited testing capacity. In the meantime, grow testing capacity as fast as you can which is 100% of political issue and not a scientific or economic one, and make as many n95 masks as possible domestically. > "she's being treated as she should be" That is a completely unmerited claim and one which causes harm.
- roel_v 7y ago
  WTF are you talking about? This is not my opinion. This is plain fact: https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/questions-and-answers https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/questions-... . Now, you might not agree with this policy/protocol. That's fine. I'm not sure I do either (although I do think that neither you nor I are in a better position to judge than they are on how much testing capacity they have). What I was saying (and I was very careful to phrase it that way) is that she's being treated according to current protocol. And my "treated as she should be" (great job on your selective quoting) referred to exactly that.
  - PeterisP 7y ago
    The point probably is that your statement of "treated as she should be" implies acceptance of the protocol and the whole situation as something that's acceptable instead of treating it as an example of a horrifically broken system that must be changed, and circumvented until it's changed. Passing that protocol was negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives, but that's not the main case here. But following that protocol was also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. The people on site should have acknowledged that this protocol is broken and should be ignored, and that people like her should be tested even if someone else has made a mistake. And also endorsing following that protocol is also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. If some institution denies testing like this, then it's immoral to accept their actions as valid and reasonable and acceptable. It's a moral imperative to point this out, and shame them for following the (broken) system instead of doing the right thing, and remind them that "just following the orders" is not an excuse if the orders are immoral; that blindly following broken protocols is simply not okay in an epidemic emergency. A few days delay in spreading the outbreak make a large difference in the total number of deaths. I recall an epidemiologic paper on the Wuhan case which modeled various containment scenarios, and the conclusion was that enforcing Wuhan lockdown 10 days (if I recall correctly) earlier would have reduced the number of cases and deaths threefold, and delaying Wuhan lockdown by two weeks would have increased the number of cases and deaths threefold.
    - roel_v 7y ago

by roel_v 7y ago

atoav 7y ago

I told her that (reasons why not everone can be tested) as well, but the thing that baffled her was that the lady on the phone said (or implied?) the reason she cannot be tested was that she wasn't registered. I once worked in a callcenter myself and auch things can happen quickly especially if you are overworked an in brain-melt territory.

droithomme 7y ago

They should test her. She might have it. They have the testing capacity. Your opinion on this is incorrect. If Netherlands continues with this policy they are following in the horrific missteps of the US in restricting testing. Some homebody with symptoms that don't match? Put them at the bottom of the queue for testing if there is limited testing capacity. In the meantime, grow testing capacity as fast as you can which is 100% of political issue and not a scientific or economic one, and make as many n95 masks as possible domestically. > "she's being treated as she should be" That is a completely unmerited claim and one which causes harm.

roel_v 7y ago
WTF are you talking about? This is not my opinion. This is plain fact: https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/questions-and-answers https://www.rivm.nl/en/novel-coronavirus-covid-19/questions-... . Now, you might not agree with this policy/protocol. That's fine. I'm not sure I do either (although I do think that neither you nor I are in a better position to judge than they are on how much testing capacity they have). What I was saying (and I was very careful to phrase it that way) is that she's being treated according to current protocol. And my "treated as she should be" (great job on your selective quoting) referred to exactly that.
- PeterisP 7y ago
  The point probably is that your statement of "treated as she should be" implies acceptance of the protocol and the whole situation as something that's acceptable instead of treating it as an example of a horrifically broken system that must be changed, and circumvented until it's changed. Passing that protocol was negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives, but that's not the main case here. But following that protocol was also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. The people on site should have acknowledged that this protocol is broken and should be ignored, and that people like her should be tested even if someone else has made a mistake. And also endorsing following that protocol is also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. If some institution denies testing like this, then it's immoral to accept their actions as valid and reasonable and acceptable. It's a moral imperative to point this out, and shame them for following the (broken) system instead of doing the right thing, and remind them that "just following the orders" is not an excuse if the orders are immoral; that blindly following broken protocols is simply not okay in an epidemic emergency. A few days delay in spreading the outbreak make a large difference in the total number of deaths. I recall an epidemiologic paper on the Wuhan case which modeled various containment scenarios, and the conclusion was that enforcing Wuhan lockdown 10 days (if I recall correctly) earlier would have reduced the number of cases and deaths threefold, and delaying Wuhan lockdown by two weeks would have increased the number of cases and deaths threefold.
  - roel_v 7y ago