3 ms·
But they aren’t testing him at the moment. They’re waiting until he shows symptoms? Maybe he won’t show symptoms but still be contagious?
by melling 7y ago
But they aren’t testing him at the moment. They’re waiting until he shows symptoms?
Maybe he won’t show symptoms but still be contagious?
- vikinghckr 7y agoPerhaps I'm missing something, but why wait for symptoms? Why not test him anyway? Is there any downside to testing? If not, then seems outrageous not to test the PM whose wife has recently tested positive.
- satya71 7y agoNot enough tests to go around? So preserve them for who needs them.
- AnthonyMouse 7y agoThe test may be more likely to be a false negative in the early stages of infection. As a result, it may be better to quarantine people who have been exposed without testing them and only test them after they develop symptoms. Otherwise you may be telling someone who has been exposed and is infected that they're not, and then they don't bother to quarantine themselves and go infect other people.
- balola 7y agoAccording to Chinese reports, the body part from which you take samples affect the result pretty significantly. There are people who tested negative multiple times from throat swabs but positive from lung fluid or anal swabs.
- csomar 7y agoIs this peak government dysfunction?
- kingofpandora 7y agoWhy would you think this is disfunction? He's acting on advice of a doctor and in any case, it seems to be a wise use of scarce resources. He's in isolation for two weeks so what does it matter? Save the test for someone who needs it.