|
|
|
|
|
by cstejerean
2307 days ago
|
|
That seems like the right interpretation. The second case in Washington State appears to be a descendant of the first case on January 19, so we’ve also had about 6 weeks of undetected spread here from a case that was believed to be contained. It goes to show that “contained” doesn’t mean much when you only test people with symptoms but you know that the virus can spread asymptomatically. Early on the official guidance was that asymptomatic spread while possible is not playing a major role in global transmissions. Now we’re seeing the results of that position. |
|
For example in the USA, by only testing the highest risk categories, the positive rate is still only ~3%. Increases in the population screened will eventually lead to decreasing the positive rate. In that sense, broadening the criteria by which we do testing will lead to dilution of utility of resources. That's not to say that the choices we made were optimal, but rather to say that scaling our testing to the point where we are catching a significant portion of asymptomatic carriers may not have been the best choice.
Remember that both test consumables and testing capability are not unlimited.
You can model this out at home with different asymptomatic carrier rates and different transmission rates and find the optimal resource allocation for each case.