|
|
|
|
|
by w-m
2211 days ago
|
|
As far as I understand, you would need to send everybody who might have been in contact with someone who's positive into quarantine, right away. You can also test them, but you need to quarantine them immediately, as the virus is transmitted before symptoms show. If you just send everybody who was in contact with a positively tested person into testing (they give samples, send them in, get tested, get the results back), but they keep going about their normal lives, they will statistically infect more people before the tests come back. So the false positive rate is quite important, as it potentially means sending thousands of people into home-quarantine. |
|
Of course it's important and of the course the lower the false positive rate the better. But the argument remains: even with a high false positive rate, what's the net result? Maybe overall it's worth putting thousands of false positive in quarantine now than a whole city of millions two months later.
There are so many variables and known unknowns in this approach. I argue that even with all the well reasoned arguments against, at this scale and with this stakes they stay theoretical until we actually do it. Let's try at least once, and if it fails it's still knowledge gained.