|
|
|
|
|
|
by ppod
2278 days ago
|
|
|
I think that as long as the availablity of tests is finite, this is a complicated process. Probably the goal should be to optimise for true positives: of the people that have the virus, we want to find as many as possible. In that case, if there is a limitation on the number of tests that can be performed each day, it does make sense to give those tests to the people who are most likely to be positive. Unless some people fit the symptom profile so neatly that they can be treated as though they were positive without a test. Can anyone with expertise weigh in along this line of thinking? |
|
|
If you're at home with what appears to be a relatively mild case of COVID, testing you doesn't tell us much right now[0]. Isolate yourself, even from your cohabitants, and scrub everything like the dickens when you feel better. You should be doing this anyway, even if it's "just" the flu.
Testing people that were around you, however, is critical for preventing the virus from spreading. This is especially true for people are asymptomatic or presymptomatic but nevertheless shed the virus.
[0] This might change in the future as we learn more about if and how long the immunity lasts; perhaps you could go back to work. Hopefully sereological testing will fill that gap soon.