Just to be clear: I didn’t say or write that.
Okay. This may seem like a really dumb question, but humor me.
What is the rationale for an individual getting tested? I understand the need for statistics, so the community can get an idea of who has it and how many and where they got it, etc.
But from any given individual’s pov, ISTM that wearing your mask, limiting your companions as much as possible to those who wear masks, distancing, hand-washing, etc., are the best things to do to reduce your chances of getting the virus.
If you don’t have symptoms right this minute, that really doesn’t mean much, as you could pick up the virus at any time in the near or distant future. You still need to wear your mask, and follow other procedures as described above. So if you’re symptom-free (at the moment) what is the rationale for getting tested? If you come up negative, it’s not like that gives you carte blanche to go on merrily with your life.
If you do have symptoms you might have COVID or you might have something else. So far there is no specific treatment for COVID the disease (only for the symptoms), and if you get tested and come up negative, presumably the test won’t tell you what disease is causing your symptoms. In all cases, your instructions will be to quarantine yourself and continue to follow strict protocols.
If you do have symptoms, and they are so bad you have to be hospitalized, then maybe at that point it would be useful for the hospital to know if you have COVID, so they know whether to isolate you, etc.
In summary, I don’t quite see how finding out whether you have the virus at any given moment in time changes what you will do about it at that moment. In any and all cases, you just need to keep acting like you have it and like everyone you come in contact with has it. That’s the best practice.
From a societal and epidemiological pov, I can see that testing adds to the community’s body of knowledge about how the disease is spreading, but WRT to the individual… not seeing it.
What am I (still) missing?
When my parents fell ill, I impressed upon them the importance of getting tested. I was scared that if they later stumbled into an ER without proof of their COVID status, they wouldn’t be taken seriously. I have no idea if that was a valid worry, but it resonated with my parents.
I think it was also important for them to know. You can tell someone to act like they have it, but as long as they don’t know for sure, they can always rationalize the symptoms away (“It’s probably just a stomach bug!”) I wanted them to take their illness seriously and I knew a positive test result would make that happen.
Right; and well done, monstro. But the key is:
I have not ever been tested for covid. I have never had any symptoms. I have been almost completely isolated since 16 March. Why would I go spend 2 or 8 or 10 hours in my car when it is 115F here so that I can be tested for something I don’t think I have?
I think I could see myself standing in a two-hour long line if I thought there was a good chance I might be infected. My employer provides a special bank of emergency sick leave, but you’re only eligible for it if you test positive. So I could see myself figuring it’s better to stand in a long-ass line before I get too sick to stand in a long-ass line. I don’t know what motivates other asymptomatic folks, though.
That totally makes sense.
I guess people are that way. I’m the opposite and tend to take health matters very seriously. I plan to keep my chances of catching this as near to zero as I can. A negative test wouldn’t change anything about my behavior WRT precautions.
Where I’m working, we’re required to report if we’ve been exposed to someone who tested positive for Covid and we’re not allowed to come back to work until we have a negative test result. I think that’s a reasonable requirement. And even if it’s not required, it’s a reasonable thing to do. Most people aren’t completely isolating, just distancing.
Another motivation to get tested when you aren’t showing symptoms:
If you have tested positive for COVID, your employer may require you to show proof that you are no longer positive before you can return to work.
I can definitely see if your employer requires it. But I do think that a negative result can give people, employers included, a false sense of everything being all hunky-dory, when it’s not.
We need to behave like everyone has it, including ourselves.
Sure. But if a student in my class has it, I have to take 14 days of leave, or get two negative test. Same thing if I have any symptoms of anything.
I can’t afford to take 14 days of sick leave every time I have allergies.
Sure; that all seems reasonable. But that isn’t me. I’m not working: my industry is all but destroyed at this point, having had zero activity since 16 March. And I’m isolated because I want people to keep their distance because I know that they aren’t keeping their distance (by visiting friends, having kids’ friends over for playdates, by going to work where people are careless, etc.).
So again: why would I spend 2 hours in 115F Las Vegas summer weather in my car to get a test?
Keep in mind: I’ve been, or tried to be, diligent like my life depended on it (because it does). I’ve been disciplined as hell for nearly 5 months now. I understand and accept my responsibilities and duties not only to myself, but to everyone else in my community and my country, and I’ve acted accordingly.
Now consider the mindset of the average American, and ask yourself: why would they think it was a good idea to spend 2 or 8 or 10 hours waiting in their car for a test for something they don’t currently have any symptoms of, considering that there’s been no negative consequences to them not wearing a mask, not socially distancing, etc.?
Are you sure you understand how unbelievably myopic and selfish many Americans are? For instance, have you seen how many fast food places there are with drive-thru windows? Of course many of them say “fuck this” and leave.
Not really a motivation for the 18 million plus people who are out of work, tho.
I agree with your questions. If someone tests “negative”, I’m not sure what value that adds. They could get it 5 minutes after the test.
That’s why I asked in another thread, what is the end game? Test everyone? Isolate those who test positive? Until when? Are they eventually NOT positive anymore?
This makes me happy:
And you probably can’t afford to take 14 days of leave the second time one of your students has COVID. I get that money’s an issue, but your district shouldn’t be making you use sick leave to cover mandated quarantine.
Will your district have enough subs to cover teachers all those days?
Good grief, of course they shouldn’t. If the school burned down would they make you use your own sick leave while it’s being rebuilt? Or if a flood washed away the building? To me this is the same thing. It’s a disaster that affects everyone.
No one knows. We all think its unsustainable and we will be all remote soon enough.
Exactly. I’m taking with a guy who describes this as “a blip in mortality”. It’s nice to have concrete comparisons.
My daughter in law spent a two weeks with her parents. My son asked her to get tested when she returned home. It’s hard to quarantine from people in your home, and if she tests negative she’ll stop doing that.
but if she tests negative, what does that do? does that mean she won’t ever test positive?
I just don’t get it.