[_gccu]

So if you get a negative result from the test-kit, you let the person go, then later after the fact, you realize that it's a false-negative and you shouldn't have let the patient go ... now you've just spread the virus even more

[hjanssen]

The alternative as it seems right now is to not test at all.

[_gccu]

I'd argue that that is better. Because if you're not tested, you know that you don't know. But if you get a false-negative (the test tells you're not infected, but you actually are), you think you're not infected, you may go about your daily life infecting other people.

[csnover]

You’re assuming that most people will act responsibly and not go about their daily lives infecting other people if they know that they don’t know. This goes against my personal experience of how many humans behave.

It’s equally plausible to me that someone receiving a false negative will take extra precautions in order to avoid becoming sick themselves, instead of deciding (in the absence of a test) that they are infected and so don’t need to be careful about protecting themselves any more.

[masonic]

Unfortunately, a no-test is preferable to a false negative.

Even with known good kits, we are getting negative and positive results from the same patient, most often throat- negative and anal-positive.

When a carrier receives a false negative, behavior changes toward risk.

[scotty79]

Maybe in ebola but not flu. And this is more like flu. Eventually almost everyone will get it. Possibly more than once.