28 ms·
> they have declined to test me because I don't meet the critical criteria: age > 60 What kind of nonsense rule is that? They're intentionally breaking the sta
by mekster 7y ago
> they have declined to test me because I don't meet the critical criteria: age > 60
What kind of nonsense rule is that? They're intentionally breaking the statistics.
Which country is this, if you don't mind saying?
- TomMarius 7y agoThat's the reality my country as well, the czech republic
- reverend_gonzo 7y agoThis is definitely happening all over the US. The reason the counts are so low is the CDC refuses to test anyone.
- ekianjo 7y agoNot just in the US. In most countries tests are extremely limited so they screen out massively.
- jml78 7y agoAnd it takes 3-5 days for CDC results to come back. My whole family is in isolation due to potential exposure while we wait to find out if the sick person has cov-19.
- peter303 7y agoTrump Inc gave up on CDC testing week and unleashed the more competent private sector. The first CDC portable test kit was defective making them [re]test at their central lab.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 7y agoThat meme is false and needs to die. Look at testing here [0], from the CDC website [1]. The CDC is just a part of this, and public labs are testing thousands per day right now. Expect this chart to keep going up. [0] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/images/lab-data-graph.png https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/images/lab-data-gr... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/testing-in-us.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/test...
- maxerickson 7y agoThe testing capacity simply doesn't exist. It's a huge failure, but it's not a nonsense rule, it's a result of poor planning and mistakes made weeks ago.
- cranekam 7y agoIn many cases testing shouldn't actually change the result, either. Suspected patients need to self-isolate, regardless of whether they actually are positive or not. Being positive doesn't necessarily require additional treatment and anyone who is sick enough to need hospitalization will need it whether they are positive or not. The main benefits I see of wider testing are a) better handle on spread of virus, b) despite the above, knowing one is positive could make the patient take self-isolation more seriously ("oh it's just a cold, I'll continue as normal" doesn't bode well). I don't see much point in using limited resources just to satisfy the curiosity of people who are able to isolate themselves and recover unaided. In fact I had something with COVID-19 symptoms a week ago and I am certainly curious to know if I did have it or not. But I have since recovered and nobody I was with (so far) is sick so there's not a lot to gain by me being tested.
- adrr 7y agoFeds have failed. We need to allow the states to determine who can run tests.
- trappist 7y agoThe testing capacity exists, if you count devices that have (still) not been approved for use. That is the primary nature of of the failure here.
- maxerickson 7y agoThis is a state Senator saying that there isn't enough reagent that is needed to prepare the samples for testing: https://twitter.com/JeffJacksonNC/status/1238811865481990144 https://twitter.com/JeffJacksonNC/status/1238811865481990144 So if that is true, the testing capacity isn't going to be limited just by device approvals. Also need to establish the protocols for other reagents and so on.