7 ms·

From the article: > Overall, 67 (48.2%) clients volunteered to be tested, and 72 (51.8%) refused Why would anyone refuse a Sars-CoV-2 test after being exposed

by Tepix 6y ago

From the article: > Overall, 67 (48.2%) clients volunteered to be tested, and 72 (51.8%) refused Why would anyone refuse a Sars-CoV-2 test after being exposed like that?

zwirbl 6y ago
because you are only covid-positive if you test positive? /s
- pacamara619 6y ago
  This, but unironically. I know people who were told by their bosses they'd get sacked if they tested positive on the virus. Obviously highly illegal but the only restrictions my country has on layoffs is that you have to give 3 months notice and if you lay off more than 20 people at once you need approval of the ministry of work.
- notahacker 6y ago
  Sadly, I suspect scepticism about Covid and conspiracy mongering about the medical establishment was behind at least some of the refusals. Not to mention need to get back to work
- chvid 6y ago
  Is it a political thing?
- bagacrap 6y ago
  ...or even if you don't, but have a cough
sombremesa 6y ago
The test is very invasive and uncomfortable. I can see why someone with no symptoms, especially if they're not at risk of transferring it to others, would refuse it.
- oakesm9 6y ago
  A swab deep in your nose and at the back of your throat is not "very invasive".
  - paranoidrobot 6y ago
    Having seen how it's done via plenty of news reports, having a swap stuck up the back of my nose certainly looks plenty invasive, not to mention potentially painful. I can certainly imagine someone who's asymptomatic and is more nervous about it being disinclined to voluntarily undergo testing. If it were a finger-tip prick or cheek-swap it'd probably have a lot more acceptance.
    - jjgreen 6y ago
      This is true, very few would object to a finger-prick, and there was talk of a "spit test" a few weeks back; that would push testing rates to close to 100%
- Tepix 6y ago
  No. I have undergone a PCR test myself and it was no big deal at all.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- paulie_a 6y ago
  It takes 5 seconds and is mildly uncomfortable. I don't even know what invasive even means in this context. All I have to say to those people is "suck it up" Source: I've had 8 tests now.
  - kitteh 6y ago
    The guidance for the last month has been that they insert it into each nostril for at least 15 seconds out here. Curious if they do the tests differently in certain locations.
jjgreen 6y ago
Because they stick a long cotton bud right up your nose, further than you would expect, not very pleasant. I wouldn't have one.
- greetings 6y ago
  I have had the the test. It is really not that bad. I thought it would be worse but it was just uncomfortable, nothing more than that.
- pavel_lishin 6y ago
  Wouldn't you want to know whether you might be infecting others you're close to?
  - jjgreen 6y ago
    I would assume that I could be positive and isolate myself.
- tylermac1 6y ago
  It's really not as bad as everyone says. I've had to have the same swab for other reasons and it takes less than a second.
- paulie_a 6y ago
  It's not a big deal at all.
- Spooky23 6y ago
  At many employers, you'd be terminated if you met the criteria for getting one. It's a pretty sad hill to die on, the discomfort level is similar to getting a shot. Really no big deal at all for a normal adult.
pavel_lishin 6y ago
If you look at it from the viewpoint of the most selfish person imaginable: If you're infected and still asymptomatic, the direct medical consequences to you are going to be the same whether you know your status now or not. But knowing you're positive obligates you to self-isolate, track down other people you've been with contact, etc. If you don't particularly care to change your lifestyle to protect others, if you don't care that you might kill people with your carelessness, it's beneficial for you not to know.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  The shame, the shame.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  Given the delay (~48+hrs) associated with getting test results, it should really go the other way— after a known exposure, you are treated as infected, the isolation and contact tracing process begins, and it's only after a negative test result that you're cleared.
  - zucker42 6y ago
    That's possible only if your public health system is equipped to force large numbers of people to undergo certain medical procedures. In the U.S. there exists significant opposition to that sort of capability.
- rlpb 6y ago
  Could it possibly affect health insurance costs in the future, too? Let's say that it turns out that COVID-19 carries a risk of long term lung damage. In the future a health insurer might start asking applicants if they have ever received a positive test result. Therefore (for those in countries where this kind of thing is a problem) there is a substantial financial risk to consider too - not just the immediate financial consequences of a possible but relatively short quarantine period.
eiji 6y ago
Because it takes time and you probably are not getting paid for participating. Most people have lives and obligations. Give'em $1000 and they wont refuse. And guarantee to pay for downsides if they test positive. And don't say it's just a swap and it only takes 5 minutes. Everything that involves the medical bureaucracy takes hours.
- virgilp 6y ago
  > Give'em $1000 and they wont refuse Alternatively: free test + healthcare if you test positive; stiff fines + liable to be sued by contacts for damages if you refuse testing and later (in the next 3 weeks) turn out to be infected.
- mikepurvis 6y ago
  > Everything that involves the medical bureaucracy takes hours. I'm in Waterloo Region, Canada, and I got tested back in mid-May after waking up with a fever randomly. It really was five minutes, in and out. Results were posted online two days later.
jkulubya 6y ago
If someone went straight home after getting a haircut or had minimal contact with others before getting the call telling them about the exposure, I’d understand just waiting out 14 (or whatever the recommendation is) days while monitoring for symptoms. In all other cases, it would be pretty selfish not to get tested so that your own contacts would be able to respond accordingly if positive.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
keldaris 6y ago
I'm not sure I would volunteer myself because, really, what information is the test going to give you? If you test negative, the instructions are still to self isolate (and rightly so, obviously). If you test positive, there's no treatment that will help you unless and until you get severely ill. I would be tempted to just refuse the test, assume I am potentially infected and self isolate for 2-4 weeks. It might be useful to get an antibody test after the isolation period, but that's a different matter altogether. Obviously, the situation is different if for some reason you really cannot self isolate properly. In that case you would still need repeated tests to be reasonably sure and I'm not sure they offer those. EDIT: my position assumes you don't require a test for contact tracing reasons. If I am contacted by anyone doing contact tracing and they ask me to get tested, I will follow their instructions. That said, if I'm going into isolation after an exposure event, I would notify everyone I've met since that event regardless of any testing.
- CydeWeys 6y ago
  There are lots of potential long-term health effects to the virus (even from asymptomatic cases), and if you were to start having health problems months down the line, you and your doctor would really want to know whether you had actually had the virus in the past. By the time months have passed it's too late to know; most people's blood antibodies have faded below detectable levels by then.
  - keldaris 6y ago
    Yes, that's why I'd love to get an antibody test right at the end of the isolation period. If that's impossible, that might be a reason to do the RT-qPCR test, but in that case it's probably still optimal to do the test after a presumed incubation period rather than immediately to reduce the chances of a false negative.
    - CydeWeys 6y ago
      You want all the kinds of tests. I'm pretty sure I had coronavirus in mid-March (I live in NYC), but seeing as how there were no tests available at all unless you were hospitalized at a minimum, I just suffered through it in home isolation. By the time antibody tests were widely available nearly two months later, my result came back negative. A swab test at the peak of my symptoms would have been more conclusive (had it been available). A lot of people who had it earlier on are already testing negative for antibodies. And now it's at the point where I'll never know for sure. I really wish the testing (all kinds) had been available in mid-March, so I'd know for sure. Now that the testing is much more available, you'd be crazy not to take advantage of it.
alfiedotwtf 6y ago
Off topic, but it would be interesting to see political affiliation with those numbers
wakkaflokka 6y ago
I'm not saying this is right, but I can imagine a few folk who probably have been going out or taking trips etc. and don't want to get tested because they fear their name being exposed somewhere with the public shaming to follow if they were to test positive. Again, not saying it's right or that it's not selfish, but I can totally see that reasoning behind a large percentage of these folk refusing to get tested.

by Tepix 6y ago

From the article: > Overall, 67 (48.2%) clients volunteered to be tested, and 72 (51.8%) refused Why would anyone refuse a Sars-CoV-2 test after being exposed like that?

zwirbl 6y ago

because you are only covid-positive if you test positive? /s

pacamara619 6y ago
This, but unironically. I know people who were told by their bosses they'd get sacked if they tested positive on the virus. Obviously highly illegal but the only restrictions my country has on layoffs is that you have to give 3 months notice and if you lay off more than 20 people at once you need approval of the ministry of work.
notahacker 6y ago
Sadly, I suspect scepticism about Covid and conspiracy mongering about the medical establishment was behind at least some of the refusals. Not to mention need to get back to work
chvid 6y ago
Is it a political thing?
bagacrap 6y ago
...or even if you don't, but have a cough

sombremesa 6y ago

The test is very invasive and uncomfortable. I can see why someone with no symptoms, especially if they're not at risk of transferring it to others, would refuse it.

oakesm9 6y ago
A swab deep in your nose and at the back of your throat is not "very invasive".
- paranoidrobot 6y ago
  Having seen how it's done via plenty of news reports, having a swap stuck up the back of my nose certainly looks plenty invasive, not to mention potentially painful. I can certainly imagine someone who's asymptomatic and is more nervous about it being disinclined to voluntarily undergo testing. If it were a finger-tip prick or cheek-swap it'd probably have a lot more acceptance.
  - jjgreen 6y ago
    This is true, very few would object to a finger-prick, and there was talk of a "spit test" a few weeks back; that would push testing rates to close to 100%
Tepix 6y ago
No. I have undergone a PCR test myself and it was no big deal at all.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
paulie_a 6y ago
It takes 5 seconds and is mildly uncomfortable. I don't even know what invasive even means in this context. All I have to say to those people is "suck it up" Source: I've had 8 tests now.
- kitteh 6y ago
  The guidance for the last month has been that they insert it into each nostril for at least 15 seconds out here. Curious if they do the tests differently in certain locations.

jjgreen 6y ago

Because they stick a long cotton bud right up your nose, further than you would expect, not very pleasant. I wouldn't have one.

greetings 6y ago
I have had the the test. It is really not that bad. I thought it would be worse but it was just uncomfortable, nothing more than that.
pavel_lishin 6y ago
Wouldn't you want to know whether you might be infecting others you're close to?
- jjgreen 6y ago
  I would assume that I could be positive and isolate myself.
tylermac1 6y ago
It's really not as bad as everyone says. I've had to have the same swab for other reasons and it takes less than a second.
paulie_a 6y ago
It's not a big deal at all.
Spooky23 6y ago
At many employers, you'd be terminated if you met the criteria for getting one. It's a pretty sad hill to die on, the discomfort level is similar to getting a shot. Really no big deal at all for a normal adult.

pavel_lishin 6y ago

If you look at it from the viewpoint of the most selfish person imaginable: If you're infected and still asymptomatic, the direct medical consequences to you are going to be the same whether you know your status now or not. But knowing you're positive obligates you to self-isolate, track down other people you've been with contact, etc. If you don't particularly care to change your lifestyle to protect others, if you don't care that you might kill people with your carelessness, it's beneficial for you not to know.

Fjolsvith 6y ago
The shame, the shame.
mikepurvis 6y ago
Given the delay (~48+hrs) associated with getting test results, it should really go the other way— after a known exposure, you are treated as infected, the isolation and contact tracing process begins, and it's only after a negative test result that you're cleared.
- zucker42 6y ago
  That's possible only if your public health system is equipped to force large numbers of people to undergo certain medical procedures. In the U.S. there exists significant opposition to that sort of capability.
rlpb 6y ago
Could it possibly affect health insurance costs in the future, too? Let's say that it turns out that COVID-19 carries a risk of long term lung damage. In the future a health insurer might start asking applicants if they have ever received a positive test result. Therefore (for those in countries where this kind of thing is a problem) there is a substantial financial risk to consider too - not just the immediate financial consequences of a possible but relatively short quarantine period.

eiji 6y ago

Because it takes time and you probably are not getting paid for participating. Most people have lives and obligations. Give'em $1000 and they wont refuse. And guarantee to pay for downsides if they test positive. And don't say it's just a swap and it only takes 5 minutes. Everything that involves the medical bureaucracy takes hours.

virgilp 6y ago
> Give'em $1000 and they wont refuse Alternatively: free test + healthcare if you test positive; stiff fines + liable to be sued by contacts for damages if you refuse testing and later (in the next 3 weeks) turn out to be infected.
mikepurvis 6y ago
> Everything that involves the medical bureaucracy takes hours. I'm in Waterloo Region, Canada, and I got tested back in mid-May after waking up with a fever randomly. It really was five minutes, in and out. Results were posted online two days later.

jkulubya 6y ago

If someone went straight home after getting a haircut or had minimal contact with others before getting the call telling them about the exposure, I’d understand just waiting out 14 (or whatever the recommendation is) days while monitoring for symptoms. In all other cases, it would be pretty selfish not to get tested so that your own contacts would be able to respond accordingly if positive.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

keldaris 6y ago

I'm not sure I would volunteer myself because, really, what information is the test going to give you? If you test negative, the instructions are still to self isolate (and rightly so, obviously). If you test positive, there's no treatment that will help you unless and until you get severely ill. I would be tempted to just refuse the test, assume I am potentially infected and self isolate for 2-4 weeks. It might be useful to get an antibody test after the isolation period, but that's a different matter altogether. Obviously, the situation is different if for some reason you really cannot self isolate properly. In that case you would still need repeated tests to be reasonably sure and I'm not sure they offer those. EDIT: my position assumes you don't require a test for contact tracing reasons. If I am contacted by anyone doing contact tracing and they ask me to get tested, I will follow their instructions. That said, if I'm going into isolation after an exposure event, I would notify everyone I've met since that event regardless of any testing.

CydeWeys 6y ago
There are lots of potential long-term health effects to the virus (even from asymptomatic cases), and if you were to start having health problems months down the line, you and your doctor would really want to know whether you had actually had the virus in the past. By the time months have passed it's too late to know; most people's blood antibodies have faded below detectable levels by then.
- keldaris 6y ago
  Yes, that's why I'd love to get an antibody test right at the end of the isolation period. If that's impossible, that might be a reason to do the RT-qPCR test, but in that case it's probably still optimal to do the test after a presumed incubation period rather than immediately to reduce the chances of a false negative.
  - CydeWeys 6y ago
    You want all the kinds of tests. I'm pretty sure I had coronavirus in mid-March (I live in NYC), but seeing as how there were no tests available at all unless you were hospitalized at a minimum, I just suffered through it in home isolation. By the time antibody tests were widely available nearly two months later, my result came back negative. A swab test at the peak of my symptoms would have been more conclusive (had it been available). A lot of people who had it earlier on are already testing negative for antibodies. And now it's at the point where I'll never know for sure. I really wish the testing (all kinds) had been available in mid-March, so I'd know for sure. Now that the testing is much more available, you'd be crazy not to take advantage of it.

alfiedotwtf 6y ago

Off topic, but it would be interesting to see political affiliation with those numbers

wakkaflokka 6y ago

I'm not saying this is right, but I can imagine a few folk who probably have been going out or taking trips etc. and don't want to get tested because they fear their name being exposed somewhere with the public shaming to follow if they were to test positive. Again, not saying it's right or that it's not selfish, but I can totally see that reasoning behind a large percentage of these folk refusing to get tested.