4 ms·

I dont understand what millions of millions of test kits will do. I’m not going to get tested because I have no symptoms. If I had symptoms I would stay in lo

by o-__-o 7y ago

I dont understand what millions of millions of test kits will do. I’m not going to get tested because I have no symptoms. If I had symptoms I would stay in lockdown until it got worse. I don’t see rationale for anyone going to get tested just because (and based on some of the photos from drive through testing, a very easy way to contract COVID yourself)

ceejayoz 7y ago
What if you're an asymptomatic carrier? The drive-through test sites are pretty well thought out. You're not likely to get the virus from the car in front of you.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  the human element will always be a failure mode. Every photo I have seen in my area has shown the testers either reaching into the car or having contact with the patient. So you may be asymptomatic or you may not, but then you possibly end up catching it at the test site but your test was negative so you continue about your routine and start spreading it for real. Not saying the above scenario is a reason not to get tested, I’m saying it’s an argument against getting tested for the sake of getting tested. I am safer and I am making the world safer by locking myself down until this passes. See China as example. I urge you to do the same..
  - ceejayoz 7y ago
    The testers wear PPE - gloves, gowns - that gets changed between tests.
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      I don’t believe that when we have a shortage. The guidelines even state don’t come to a testing site if you are not showing symptoms as you may catch the covid. I mean why are you not even considering my viewpoint? Look at China, is it testing that’s working there or the lockdown?
      - cycomanic 7y ago
        Another example is to look at South Korea, which got a handle on things with lots of testing (and tracing) . I think this is actually a better example than china, considering that it is a democracy. Lots of testing is btw also the WHO recommendation.
- DanBC 7y ago
  The tests can tell you if you have covid-19. What they can't do, because they have such a high false negative rate, is tell you that you don't have it.
  - macintux 7y ago
    That’s fine. Get a preliminary test, rule it out if you can, and if it comes back positive then take other tests or self-isolate, or both. Beats the heck out of everyone hiding under their bed for months.
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      But if you catch co19 t-0 after leaving the testing site then you can spread it, right? So what is testing the world going to solve if no one is preventing the spread of contamination? Because the answer is that you will only overwhelm hospital resources Look at China.
      - macintux 7y ago
        I don’t think anyone is proposing that testing is a magical cure for the overall problem; obviously you’d have to use testing in conjunction with treatment and isolation and presumably other tactics. However, this idea that testing is worthless is frankly bizarre. You can’t control what you can’t measure, and “number of people occupying hospital beds” is a very poor measure for a disease that spreads silently for weeks before symptoms emerge.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      You can't "rule it out", because when the test says "you don't have it" you may well have it. Some of the tests have a 20% to 40% false negative rate.
      - macintux 7y ago
        That’s unfortunate.
fragmede 7y ago
By the time you feeling symptomatic, our current understanding[0] is that you've been shedding the virus all over the damn place for the past 2-14 days[1], spreading germs everywhere you've been. By the time you feel sick, it's too late. It's spring, are you really going to self-isolate for 14 days just because you sneezed once? What sounds better, going to get tested, so you can know if it's a sneeze and you can go about your life, or self-isolate because of you sneezed once. During spring. We failed at preparing for this. Let's not double down on failure. [0] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/abstract/32 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-c... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s...
- MikeAmelung 7y ago
  Even if they go and get tested, and it comes back negative, that doesn't prevent them from being infected (possibly even at the testing site, as they mentioned) and then being an asymptomatic spreader.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  Where am I spreading germs all over the place if I’m isolating myself in my home? Please read my text.. I agree Let’s not double down on failure. Look at what China did, it worked let’s follow them. Practice social distancing until July. There is no other option until our hospitals are under control...
  - macintux 7y ago
    You’re missing the point. You might be spreading it everywhere right now and you wouldn’t have any symptoms for another two weeks.
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      I have been locked in for two weeks, if I am spreading it everywhere then my house is a biological war zone. But that’s the point of self isolation, it’s to make sure you are not spreading it to others. Why would I go to get a test if I’m isolating? If I’m negative that doesn’t mean I will never get it. So why not just stay inside until hospitals are less overwhelmed (and THEN get tested on a regular basis to avoid contamination — you know what we should have been doing since day 1) Everyone should be doing this so you wouldn’t have to assume I am spreading it everywhere. Look at China, its working.
stOneskull 7y ago
Sydney airport just started checking everybody arriving and it causes a big queue and people all breathing on each other.
cycomanic 7y ago
It's not just about people with symptoms to get tested. It's about people who are known to have had contact with infected to get tested. Also importantly you want to regularly (at least once a week) test health workers and others who are in contact with vulnerable people. And finally, by doing lots of so called sentinel tests (random testing around the country) you can get a much better picture of how the virus spreads. In short it is not about your interest if you get tested it is about societies interest.
- o-__-o 7y ago
  Hey I agree with you, but I am not a health worker. I think we need to remember what spawned this thread and not move the goalposts for talking points. Even if you are not showing symptoms stay inside so you are not spreading the disease. Getting tested won’t prevent the spread, staying isolated will. Look at China.
  - landryraccoon 7y ago
    Why do you keep saying China instead of countries that have contained the virus like South Korea and Taiwan? Aggressive testing are key aspects of their strategy for containing the virus.
    - o-__-o 7y ago
      Because South Korea govt was allowed to look at citizens credit card transaction data and cell phone location data to enforce quarantine, something US cannot do without creating very unpopular laws. US can do what China did, heavy handed lock people inside with supplies and test anyone who moves outside of the house. You test positive you either go into mandatory quarantine (hospital) or you get an ankle monitor. China method works better than SK method when you think about how we got the TSA and how it helps our daily lives

by o-__-o 7y ago

ceejayoz 7y ago

What if you're an asymptomatic carrier? The drive-through test sites are pretty well thought out. You're not likely to get the virus from the car in front of you.

o-__-o 7y ago
the human element will always be a failure mode. Every photo I have seen in my area has shown the testers either reaching into the car or having contact with the patient. So you may be asymptomatic or you may not, but then you possibly end up catching it at the test site but your test was negative so you continue about your routine and start spreading it for real. Not saying the above scenario is a reason not to get tested, I’m saying it’s an argument against getting tested for the sake of getting tested. I am safer and I am making the world safer by locking myself down until this passes. See China as example. I urge you to do the same..
- ceejayoz 7y ago
  The testers wear PPE - gloves, gowns - that gets changed between tests.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    I don’t believe that when we have a shortage. The guidelines even state don’t come to a testing site if you are not showing symptoms as you may catch the covid. I mean why are you not even considering my viewpoint? Look at China, is it testing that’s working there or the lockdown?
    - cycomanic 7y ago
      Another example is to look at South Korea, which got a handle on things with lots of testing (and tracing) . I think this is actually a better example than china, considering that it is a democracy. Lots of testing is btw also the WHO recommendation.
DanBC 7y ago
The tests can tell you if you have covid-19. What they can't do, because they have such a high false negative rate, is tell you that you don't have it.
- macintux 7y ago
  That’s fine. Get a preliminary test, rule it out if you can, and if it comes back positive then take other tests or self-isolate, or both. Beats the heck out of everyone hiding under their bed for months.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    But if you catch co19 t-0 after leaving the testing site then you can spread it, right? So what is testing the world going to solve if no one is preventing the spread of contamination? Because the answer is that you will only overwhelm hospital resources Look at China.
    - macintux 7y ago
      I don’t think anyone is proposing that testing is a magical cure for the overall problem; obviously you’d have to use testing in conjunction with treatment and isolation and presumably other tactics. However, this idea that testing is worthless is frankly bizarre. You can’t control what you can’t measure, and “number of people occupying hospital beds” is a very poor measure for a disease that spreads silently for weeks before symptoms emerge.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    You can't "rule it out", because when the test says "you don't have it" you may well have it. Some of the tests have a 20% to 40% false negative rate.
    - macintux 7y ago
      That’s unfortunate.

fragmede 7y ago

By the time you feeling symptomatic, our current understanding[0] is that you've been shedding the virus all over the damn place for the past 2-14 days[1], spreading germs everywhere you've been. By the time you feel sick, it's too late. It's spring, are you really going to self-isolate for 14 days just because you sneezed once? What sounds better, going to get tested, so you can know if it's a sneeze and you can go about your life, or self-isolate because of you sneezed once. During spring. We failed at preparing for this. Let's not double down on failure. [0] https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/abstract/32 https://www.uptodate.com/contents/coronavirus-disease-2019-c... [1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/symptoms.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/s...

MikeAmelung 7y ago
Even if they go and get tested, and it comes back negative, that doesn't prevent them from being infected (possibly even at the testing site, as they mentioned) and then being an asymptomatic spreader.
o-__-o 7y ago
Where am I spreading germs all over the place if I’m isolating myself in my home? Please read my text.. I agree Let’s not double down on failure. Look at what China did, it worked let’s follow them. Practice social distancing until July. There is no other option until our hospitals are under control...
- macintux 7y ago
  You’re missing the point. You might be spreading it everywhere right now and you wouldn’t have any symptoms for another two weeks.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    I have been locked in for two weeks, if I am spreading it everywhere then my house is a biological war zone. But that’s the point of self isolation, it’s to make sure you are not spreading it to others. Why would I go to get a test if I’m isolating? If I’m negative that doesn’t mean I will never get it. So why not just stay inside until hospitals are less overwhelmed (and THEN get tested on a regular basis to avoid contamination — you know what we should have been doing since day 1) Everyone should be doing this so you wouldn’t have to assume I am spreading it everywhere. Look at China, its working.

stOneskull 7y ago

Sydney airport just started checking everybody arriving and it causes a big queue and people all breathing on each other.

cycomanic 7y ago

It's not just about people with symptoms to get tested. It's about people who are known to have had contact with infected to get tested. Also importantly you want to regularly (at least once a week) test health workers and others who are in contact with vulnerable people. And finally, by doing lots of so called sentinel tests (random testing around the country) you can get a much better picture of how the virus spreads. In short it is not about your interest if you get tested it is about societies interest.

o-__-o 7y ago
Hey I agree with you, but I am not a health worker. I think we need to remember what spawned this thread and not move the goalposts for talking points. Even if you are not showing symptoms stay inside so you are not spreading the disease. Getting tested won’t prevent the spread, staying isolated will. Look at China.
- landryraccoon 7y ago
  Why do you keep saying China instead of countries that have contained the virus like South Korea and Taiwan? Aggressive testing are key aspects of their strategy for containing the virus.
  - o-__-o 7y ago
    Because South Korea govt was allowed to look at citizens credit card transaction data and cell phone location data to enforce quarantine, something US cannot do without creating very unpopular laws. US can do what China did, heavy handed lock people inside with supplies and test anyone who moves outside of the house. You test positive you either go into mandatory quarantine (hospital) or you get an ankle monitor. China method works better than SK method when you think about how we got the TSA and how it helps our daily lives