31 ms·

Statistics is not the only purpose of testing! If physical distancing is successful in reducing the reproduction number (R0), you will then want to track, trac

Statistics is not the only purpose of testing! If physical distancing is successful in reducing the reproduction number (R0), you will then want to track, trace and isolate every case to prevent further outbreaks when you relax the rules. That means a lot of testing.

iso1631 7y ago
OP said "better understanding of the virus' properties, like the distribution of symptoms, severities, and mortality rate" Random and self-selecting testing doesn't seem to offer much in that. Imagine going to a Nics game and asking everyone there who they support, chances are you'll get a lot of Nics fans. How does that give you a better indication of mortality rate or severity if you have no idea how many people actually have it, because you only have a statistically insignificant tests. Sure, if you're in the stage where you want to lock down specific people (like South Korea) then random widespread testing works to increase the number of locked down people. But if you're in a country where you've locked down everyone already, then testing could well be increasing the risk. If the population assumes they've tested positive, and acts like they are, then what does testing add?
- sct202 7y ago
  The purpose of random testing or testing of more people who have exposure but no symptoms would be to limit household spread by separating people from their households or having the households act differently knowing that they'll be constantly exposed.
  - iso1631 7y ago
    If you're testing people without symptoms, you need to be testing large numbers otherwise you'll be ignoring 99% of houses. Globally there have been fewer than 5 million tests performed since the start of January.
- learnstats2 7y ago
  > If the population assumes they've tested positive, and acts like they are That is a fair point, and I agree that testing is most important when there are a limited number of cases - a stage which was essentially missed by Western governments but hopefully will have another opportunity. I don't agree that populations are acting like they have tested positive, though, or can do that en masse. If you know yourself to be positive, you should ideally be taking stricter measures - like having people leaving food at your doorstep. Only people who are not infectious should be involved in food and resource distribution. In order to enact that, you would need to actually test.

iso1631 7y ago

OP said "better understanding of the virus' properties, like the distribution of symptoms, severities, and mortality rate" Random and self-selecting testing doesn't seem to offer much in that. Imagine going to a Nics game and asking everyone there who they support, chances are you'll get a lot of Nics fans. How does that give you a better indication of mortality rate or severity if you have no idea how many people actually have it, because you only have a statistically insignificant tests. Sure, if you're in the stage where you want to lock down specific people (like South Korea) then random widespread testing works to increase the number of locked down people. But if you're in a country where you've locked down everyone already, then testing could well be increasing the risk. If the population assumes they've tested positive, and acts like they are, then what does testing add?

sct202 7y ago
The purpose of random testing or testing of more people who have exposure but no symptoms would be to limit household spread by separating people from their households or having the households act differently knowing that they'll be constantly exposed.
- iso1631 7y ago
  If you're testing people without symptoms, you need to be testing large numbers otherwise you'll be ignoring 99% of houses. Globally there have been fewer than 5 million tests performed since the start of January.
learnstats2 7y ago
> If the population assumes they've tested positive, and acts like they are That is a fair point, and I agree that testing is most important when there are a limited number of cases - a stage which was essentially missed by Western governments but hopefully will have another opportunity. I don't agree that populations are acting like they have tested positive, though, or can do that en masse. If you know yourself to be positive, you should ideally be taking stricter measures - like having people leaving food at your doorstep. Only people who are not infectious should be involved in food and resource distribution. In order to enact that, you would need to actually test.