34
Comments (5)
sorted by:
3
Lamech_Slade 3 points ago +3 / -0

Exactly, plus I haven't heard anyone give any data on false positive/false negative rates for the tests... If the false positive rate is 1-2%, if you tested non-symptomatic folks in mass, the false positive rate would skew the results.

4
deleted 4 points ago +4 / -0
2
inquimouse 2 points ago +2 / -0

I suspected something like that, but 80%? Where did you see that? False negatives would be worse.

3
SuddyG 3 points ago +3 / -0

Yeah, people that get tested that have no symptoms would be wasteful.

"People are thought to be most contagious when they are most symptomatic (the sickest)." -CDC

So, even if people had it with no symptoms I feel it'd be unlikely to spread if proper hygiene is practiced. Then again i'm no doctor lol.

2
catbertz 2 points ago +2 / -0

Yep. South Korea is testing tons, and that has driven the mortality rate to below 1%, but there's a point of diminishing returns and inefficiency that kicks in. Let your doctor make the call.