Are you aware of the difference between 4^x and 1^x?
Are you aware that the sensitivity quoted was mostly in symptomatic and hospitalized patients and not those in the very earliest stages who could also be shedding less virus?
Are you aware that each false negative can infect N others, some of whom might have also been previously tested, and also be greenlit to deal with high-risk populations like nursing homes?
Are you aware that your 4^x vs 1^x comparison assumes that in that chain everyone is tested, which is not even close to the case now.
Are you aware that the test can be improved by training medical personnel on sampling technique?
Are you aware that tests will, as a general rule, improve?
Are you aware that the majority of people understand the difference between 70% and 100% accurate?
Are you aware that public policy was affected by poor data on the spread?
Are you aware that it's far easier to successfully test [nearly] everyone in the chain when the number of cases is small, like it would have been when this test was initially available?
The _only_ way this can be contained is through massive lockdowns. If tests were performed _as soon as possible_, then there's a good chance we could have done a good job containing it through contact tracing. Even if that weren't the case, it would have given our medical system several extra weeks to prepare for the case load. It would have given our politicians better data to enact policies.
Here's where we agree. We agree that the only way this can be contained is massive lockdowns, and I believe this particularly true in the face of unreliable and unavailable testing. I also think it has to be coordinated across the country to prevent constant reseeding. We agree that testing everyone would've been good, particularly in the containment phase, but that ship has sailed.
My original point is that under the current system where we are occasionally testing the public at large, and also using swab RT-PCR just after suspected infected contact (way before symptoms like Pence, etc), the variable sensitivity is troubling.
But even in the current environment, testing is important. It guides public policy, and it helps doctors triage patients in serious condition. It still helps to limit the spread, and will do so even more when testing overtakes the infection rate (aided by lockdowns). If testing improves, then it could cut weeks off a global lockdown, because the long tail will die that much faster.
Not everyone is a neckbeard with a programming job who can live in a basement for two weeks without a single human contact, so anything that helps extinguish this disease helps. Now if you'll excuse me, I should go shave.
Yes, it certainly is. Did I ever say we shouldn't test? Did I ever argue testing couldn't be improved? Suggest you argue points that were actually put forth instead of using straw men arguments. Re-read the last line of my original post. I'm all in favor of trying to find positive cases.
>Re-read the last line of my original post.
Still wrong. Reread the second to last line of your original post.
>There's a reason why screening tests need to be highly accurate.
They don't. That's the point. It doesn't need to be 99.9% accurate unless the disease is so aggressive that you're all dead anyway.
There's the contention. The goal is exponential decay, and the only scalable method is to reduce the reproduction rate. Even if you don't drop below 1, a smaller exponential still grows exponentially slower.
Second and less talked about, there are consequences of a false negative population which is NOT handled appropriately -- like not letting people know if they test negative they STILL should stay away from high-risk population or take precautions like you still could be infected. That directive has been circulated a little but most people I've seen don't know that. The news reporters don't ask Pence about serial tests. They seem satisfied he had one negative test.
Once again, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, I'm not against widespread testing of the current RT-PCR swab, particularly if we had lots of tests, didn't have PPE shortages in the area, and guidance was given to all those receiving results. Your contention that accuracy doesn't matter is incorrect. It matters because false negatives matter and it's great to do testing to decrease the spread, which is pretty obvious, but you absolutely need additional management depending on accuracy. Like not setting the standard of working with high-risk patients as a single negative test. They need to be tested serially and hopefully get a more accurate test for nursing home workers in future. Like not assuming Pence isn't spreading disease because of a single negative test. He could be one of the many asymptomatic infected. This has been my point for this entire thread. I'll leave you to argue something different.