If one has symptoms but not to the point of hospitalization and is going to

[RB TexLa]

isolate, why reason would there be to be tested? We treat the symptoms so if you are not requiring medical treatment in a facility and will not be exposing people, why pay for the test? If you are lucky enough to not have the symptoms become severe and are able to isolate and wait it out what benefit is the test for you?

[snowybirdie]

1. I wonder that too

Common sense would seem that they should test after symptoms are gone to see if a person is over it and can go out in society again.

[Siwsan]

2. If you definitely recovered from Covid-19, you can donate blood so they can use the plasma

Apparently the anti-bodies in the plasma can help ease the course of the disease.

Not to mention giving them a better idea of just how wide spread this disease has become.

[Eyeball_Kid]

27. Question: if you are infected, not hospitalized, AND give blood/plasma,

do you transfer the virus to recipients of your plasma/blood? What if you are asymptomatic and have the virus?

Shouldn't everyone know that you are or are not infected BEFORE you donate blood/plasma?

[Siwsan]

31. I am pretty sure you have to be verified and recovered, first. They need the antibodies

At this point they are likely only accepting people who have been confirmed, via testing, as having Covid-19 and are now past the accepted recovery time. No doubt they are temperature checking anyone offering to donate.

Who knows - maybe down the road they will be able to test those who suspect, but were not confirmed via a test, as having it.
If the antibodies are present, they can be extracted.

My brother is such a case. He showed the symptoms and was the sickest he's ever been, but still wasn't critical enough to merit testing as he is not in a 'vulnerable' age group and has no health compromising conditions. He said if he can be confirmed as having recovered from Covid-19, he wants to donate.

[Igel]

33. That's the idea.

The early results were "promising"--which, in context, meant "no worse than doing nothing." Or the numbers were so small as to be meaningless, with no control.

Like the early hydroxychloroquine runs.

It's worth checking out, and while it consumes resources most hospitals aren't so strapped that they don't have room and staff for the trial.

[marybourg]

3. So that you'll know in the future that you had it already.

So that you'll be highly motivated to self quarantine.

So yhay you'll qualify for any treatment that may be or may become available.

[Igel]

37. Still playing the odds.

Which is what you play without the test.

A serological test will be needed. Not only because of the 30% false negative rate you get with the PCR tests, but also because it's looking like (given early, and possibly erroneous, data) that 10% of those who recover have no antibodies. That means they might be subject to reinfection.

So a test that's negative doesn't mean you don't have it. A test that's positive probably means you did have it. But having it, as of now, doesn't mean you'll be immune.

Right now there are no treatments shown to work. Hydroxychloroquine and blood plasma transfusions were proffered, but based on bad research or neutral outcomes they're pursued either a part of a trial or because there's nothing good to try and there's maybe hope. Hydroxychloroquine looks like it's not doing so great, even though it's often become a standard-if-pointless treatment. No word on blood plasma transfusions.

As for self-quarantining, we should be. A colleague's kid has COVID-19 and they're wearing masks at home. There was stony silence over Zoom when we asked where her daughter could have acquired it. The father took the kid to be tested. The mother didn't. The mother was coughing. Either the mother infected her daughter or they let the kid play where she shouldn't have. These things happen, and if somebody's in charge of kids or alone and needs to go out after testing positive, these things still happen.

[ismnotwasm]

4. Data.

[Wounded Bear]

5. Perhaps there is a benefit to the public to identify those with communicable diseases...

Just sayin'

[Igel]

38. There is.

We don't.

HIPAA.

[tblue37]

6. We don't know how long you can keep shedding the virus. We also need the plasma

with antibodies from those who have recovered, so we need to know who they are. And we need to know how many have had it so we know when we are likely to achieve herd immunity.

Also, many of those "mild" cases are only "mild" compared to those who must be hospitalized. Some evidence now suggests they could have long term damage to their liver, heart and/or lungs.

[yardwork]

7. Best practices for population health would be to test everybody.

With so few being tested, we will never know how many people were actually infected. The mortality rates will be inaccurate. We don't know how many people get the virus and show few or no symptoms.

This leaves us in the dark in so many ways, and poorly prepared for the next viral epidemic.

[Igel]

34. Testing just the sick doesn't do much, either.

That bias in the test sample skews the results so we still won't know how many are actually infected. The S. Korea data showed--and weren't quite trusted--that a lot of people were asymptomatic. The distrust led people to point to the very real ambiguity, perhaps those people were in the window where the virus was detectable but hadn't actually fallen ill. The drive for containment meant the level of asymptomatic cases had to be discounted, otherwise containment was a waste of time.

Now we know that containment by the time we had a test in the US was very likely already a waste of time, and by the time we had adequate numbers of test kits to try to implement containment it was certainly a waste of time. All the arguments rely on the difference between "very likely" and "certainly" and treat that as a huge difference. It's like saying that in that space between 95% and 100% is not just the full range of 100% but, in fact, all the most likely true scenarios. Such belief should be able to move not just mountains but entire frigging star systems.

The OP has a valid point. We either ramp up testing a lot, or it's mostly for psychological reasons or for the coroner's report or for social reasons. You need it for your job, for instance. Given that we're all doing the social-distancing thing, social-distancing versus full quarantine isn't a big difference in outcome. Even in a house, if my kid tests positive today it means close exposure to him from the time of infection to the present, and *then* reduced risk. On the other hand, if he's not symptomatic he won't get tested; and even if he's not tested, I'm going to avoid him because I don't want to get sick from other things, either. And since he hasn't been anywhere since 3/20, if he tested positive today it would mean either his mother or I brought it home.

At this point the PCR test will come back negative for a lot of people with antibodies.

The test isn't useful for a lot of reasons. I think of it as the equivalent of toilet paper: People wanted it because it gave them a sense of control. Many patients are relieved when they're told they have something--granted, the possibility of it being something less is ruled out (downer), but the knowledge means some sort of control, even if it's not control over the thing but over expectations and prognosis.

[Girard442]

8. If you could get tested without risk or expense (neither of which is true right now)...

...the results could help you. If they are negative, it would give you peace of mind. If they are positive, you might ramp up your quarantine effort and maybe help with contact tracing.

As of right now, tests aren't plentiful or cheap, can't be taken without some risk, and contact tracing is a fantasy -- so, for now, you're mostly right.

[thesquanderer]

17. If you have health insurance, I thought tests were mostly free, or at least cheap.

Normally there would be a copay, but aren't many/most insurers waiving the copay for this, making it entirely free? (Assuming a doctor recommends that you have the test.)

[Hoyt]

9. True, at this point. We are all supposed to act as if we have it, that's what isolation is.

Plus, even if you get tested, it's not conclusive. If you use the more accurate tests, it takes a few days to get results. One could have been infected giving a specimen, or a day or two later. So, they still need to stay home. If you get the rapid test, there is a 40% or so false negative rate, meaning you aren't good to go even if negative.

Hospitalizations and deaths, are a more important stat. I'm sure the scientists like to have all kinds of data, like infection rate, exacerbations, death, etc. But, it's just not necessary at this point.

Antibody tests will be important going forward.

I think testing would have helped initially, but the reason it was really pushed was to prove trump was a ignoramus for using terms like "hoax." We are way past that.

[MoonchildCA]

10. To add to the good reasons mentioned above,

To know if anyone you came in contact with was exposed, is as of yet, asymptomatic, and needs to be tested and isolate as well.

[Raven123]

11. Test for active infection: probably none. Test for antibody after recovery: for plasma donation

Some states are not recommending testing under the circumstances you describe for the reasons you note. Until we have scaled up testing for the virus and it’s antibodies accompanied by thorough epidemiologic research, we will have a very limited understanding of COVID-19.

[mwooldri]

13. One might have similar symptoms but not Covid-19.

Might be flu and/or pneumonia.

[LAS14]

16. So what, is the OP's question, I think. The treatment doesn't vary, whether..

... it's COVID-19 or something else with the same symptoms.

[mwooldri]

18. Flu and regular pneumonia have treatments.

If it's flu, prescribe Tamiflu.

I suppose we could not test for Covid-19 but the other tests can be ran to rule those out. So if a flu swab comes back negative and a basic respiratory panel comes back all clear then we could presume Covid without having done the Covid test.

Maybe I just like tests.

[LAS14]

26. Yes, if you're sick enough to be treated outside the home, get a flu test. Or whatever other...

... test you might have gotten. But no need to get frantic because you couldn't get a COVID-19 test.

[Lochloosa]

14. As in other deadly viruses, and this is a deadly virus, you do contact tracing.

This is to find out who the person has been in contact with and test them. It breaks the chain.

[Igel]

35. You can.

But right now, with hundreds of thousands of positive tests (and hundreds of thousands of false negatives) that's a losing proposition.

Sort of like holding up one of the walls in the WTC as it collapsed.

Social distancing will break the chain just fine in most cases. And in the others, with essential service providers outside the home, you get sick--you stay home, regardless. Then you might test those who worked close with the new patient, but probably not those 200 feet away in a warehouse or who just dropped something off and left.

[LAS14]

15. My question too. Maybe the official count will be a little off, but aren't they....

... taking into account people with symptoms even when there aren't enough tests? But apart from the count, I don't see the urgency, and the sufferer isn't going to benefit from an accurate count. Better use the tests to find areas that can still contained (surveil and track.)

Health care workers are the exception, unless they're working strictly in Corona Virus wards. My daughter-in-law is an ICU physician and she had to stay home 4 or 5 days with a fever and headache waiting for the results. It came back negative and that's when I found out that 30% to 40% of the tests return FALSE negatives...

[Demsrule86]

20. No...deliberately undercounting.

[LAS14]

25. I'd hate to think "the deep state" if failing us in that way. I'm counting..

... on public health statisticians doing the best they can, as they have always done. I think.

[Igel]

36. I still like Hanlon's razor.

Doesn't make us feel good, but it's usually found to be right when the principle of exclusivity is omitted.

[Demsrule86]

19. You need to test everyone...so we know who has it. And so if things go south the Docs know when

you end up at the hospital. My brother is now in intensive care barely able to breathe waiting for his test to come back...1-3 days. He could be dead by then.

[2naSalit]

23. Yikes...

I hope he pulls through!

[Eyeball_Kid]

29. A test is a snapshot.

Testing must be continuous. One test doesn't mean much. I could test negative on Saturday and get infected on Sunday.

So we need continuous testing and we also need continuous anti-body detection, because we DO NOT KNOW the length of time that antibodies are produced in the body to continuously eliminate this virus. We ALSO do not know if a mutated virus will nonetheless be eliminated by antibodies, or whether any future vaccine will cover CV mutations.

IOW, we don't know shit. And we won't know shit until we begin to understand the behavior of the virus. And that takes testing. We don't do enough testing to know jack shit about CV-19.

And may your brother recover and be well.

[Marrah_Goodman]

21. Because it is important to document that you have it

and important to know when you are free of it.

[2naSalit]

22. Because shedding of

the virus particles is possible before symptoms and after, it appears. This would involve a time span of a possible six to eight weeks of the ability to pass it to others and a need to isolate for that long.

Testing, either to see if you carry the virus or have antibodies is key to stopping the pandemic. Vaccines can be made from antibodies in recovered person's blood and it also indicates that the person has already had it. Testing either prior to and after infection is important as it is testing to see when you are no longer able to infect others.

[uponit7771]

24. Contact tracing

[stillcool]

28. for the good of others?

if you don't care where you got it, or who you might have infected over the last few weeks, why bother? Let someone else figure it out. Just take care of number 1. Eff the rest.

[Baclava]

30. data, not everything is about the individual

[lark]

32. It's of benefit to the people of America. We need to see how this is really effecting us.

Without testing we have no idea of what's going on, it's just BS #'s floating around.

[spinbaby]

39. I would have appreciated a test last month.

My grandson and I both got sick about a week after going through two flights and three airports. Then I lived in fear of infecting someone if I had it. Now I live in fear of getting it if I hadn’t had it.