3 ms·

Why do they test people who are dead already? Given the shortage of tests, wouldn't it more sense to test people who are alive?

vkou 7y ago
1. You can still do contact tracing of a dead person, and follow-up on who they interacted with. 2. Bigger death numbers allow medical professionals to go to their government, and demand for more stringent quarantine measures.
joaomacp 7y ago
To trace contacts of the deceased person. For an elder person, it's likely he/she has interacted with other elders, and it's good to check. Compared with testing a healthy young person who is asymptomatic, it's better to test the dead one. Edit: but healthy people with some suspect symptoms should of course remain isolated.
morelisp 7y ago
One person in a nursing home of now 20 dies of respiratory complications matching pre-existing conditions. You can: - assume it was coronavirus, test the remaining 20 people - cost: 20 tests - or, test the dead person, then only test the remaining 20 people if that test comes back positive - cost: 1 test or 21 tests, expected cost 1 + 20 * % chance the person was infected tests. Unless you believe there's a 95% chance they were infected, the tests are better spent elsewhere. (This assumes you are also going to isolate them until the results are in regardless, which has further cost and dangers especially in high-risk groups. And that you are either already testing or not testing anyone outside the living group possibly exposed. Public health is a wicked problem.)
toyg 7y ago
Dying patients are still in contact with tons of people: doctors, nurses, relatives, etc; and these people go on infecting, unless they are traced and isolated. One case in Southern Italy resulted in death, but the body was incorrectly released for the funeral like a regular case. Result: dozens of infections at the funeral.
greglindahl 7y ago
Different places in the world have different levels of test shortage.

vkou 7y ago

1. You can still do contact tracing of a dead person, and follow-up on who they interacted with. 2. Bigger death numbers allow medical professionals to go to their government, and demand for more stringent quarantine measures.

joaomacp 7y ago

To trace contacts of the deceased person. For an elder person, it's likely he/she has interacted with other elders, and it's good to check. Compared with testing a healthy young person who is asymptomatic, it's better to test the dead one. Edit: but healthy people with some suspect symptoms should of course remain isolated.

morelisp 7y ago

One person in a nursing home of now 20 dies of respiratory complications matching pre-existing conditions. You can: - assume it was coronavirus, test the remaining 20 people - cost: 20 tests - or, test the dead person, then only test the remaining 20 people if that test comes back positive - cost: 1 test or 21 tests, expected cost 1 + 20 * % chance the person was infected tests. Unless you believe there's a 95% chance they were infected, the tests are better spent elsewhere. (This assumes you are also going to isolate them until the results are in regardless, which has further cost and dangers especially in high-risk groups. And that you are either already testing or not testing anyone outside the living group possibly exposed. Public health is a wicked problem.)

toyg 7y ago

Dying patients are still in contact with tons of people: doctors, nurses, relatives, etc; and these people go on infecting, unless they are traced and isolated. One case in Southern Italy resulted in death, but the body was incorrectly released for the funeral like a regular case. Result: dozens of infections at the funeral.

greglindahl 7y ago

Different places in the world have different levels of test shortage.