4 ms·
People don't usually use these tests to prevent transmission, but to have a formal negative test result, as this is the entry ticket to many shops and services
by bildung 5y ago
People don't usually use these tests to prevent transmission, but to have a formal negative test result, as this is the entry ticket to many shops and services. A proof of vaccination provides the same, while also reducing transmission.
- cies 5y agoA person tested negative should not be able to spread. A vaxed person may still spread. Where's your logic?
- ketzu 5y ago> A person tested negative should not be able to spread. False-negative results exist.
- bildung 5y agoA person tested negative has just not been proven positive, which is different from being proven negative. PCR test sensitivity can be as low as 70%. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787 https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20066787 A vaccinated person may only spread if they are indeed infected, which is less common to begin with. Then, if they are indeed infected, the rate of transmission is much lower - as they usually don't develop heavy viral loads.
- lazyjones 5y ago> A vaccinated person may only spread if they are indeed infected Um, this is the case also for the unvaccinated.
- bildung 5y agoThat's why the sentence had a second half: ", which is less common to begin with." That's the purpose of a vaccination.
- Dwelve 5y agoSo why not have the negative test to add an extra layer of precaution? You're just saying that this bar of risk is acceptable for you but the other one isn't, which is arbitrarily chosen.
- bildung 5y agoOh I'm not against testing at all. I was just talking about why people used these these extra test centers in Germany: Because a negative test receipt was of equally weight as a prove of vaccination when participating in events etc. That will end, but that doesn't mean testing will stop. You can still go to a physician for PCR or do antigen tests.