Community Chat

[september]

Yes, I would get tested. Once testing is widely available, as it should be, I won't be "taking a test away" from anyone else.  It would be important for the greater good, to know the overall stats. 

[noodleann]

---

@Porcelain wrote:

It's sort of like STD testing. Back when I was dating, I remember insisting on both my bf and I getting tested for every known social disease before getting serious. We had to trust each other not to go catting around after the test, but it freed us so much. Now I didn't have any kind of spotted past, but my bf at the time did have a kind of shady ex, so...I felt justified. Meow.

Why am I saying all this? Well it is because I could have easily said well why bother getting STD tests since either of us could catch something after being tested. But as long as we trusted each other, getting negative test results at the start really did mean something.

For a limited-time event, testing everyone going to that event before letting them enter could allow people to go to that event. The only things necessary would be limited people, enough tests, and quick results.

---

Huge difference between STDs and this virus is the nature of the activity usually required to acquire an STD. The virus? Just breathing will do it. And I would never trust anyone not to have done something between the moment the sample was taken and the event that exposed him or her to the virus.

The scenario you posit also requires no false negatives. That doesn't exist and may never exist.

[QueenDanceALot]

---

@SusieQ_2 wrote:

"I think it's good to know who has the virus (and doesn't know it) TODAY.  Hard to make intelligent decisions without information." @QueenDanceALot 

Absolutely, Kitty. I'm not saying we should throw out the test but to me it seems it's really more useful for someone who tests positive who now knows to careful, stay quarantined, and watch for any symptom that may need hospitalization. 

For those who test negative it's a good test for a day. Not so much for the next day though especially if being tested to return to the workplace.

The result you get today means nothing for tomorrow. That's the problem. 

---

@SusieQ_2 

I don't think it means "nothing for tomorrow" if you test negative.  You should still keep distance, wear a mask when you are out, basically act as though you ARE a carrier.  Only difference would be that you aren't in solitary (quarantine) for a couple of weeks.

Those precautions alone will protect others when you are at the market or the pharmacy.

Those who test positive just have to take the extra step.

Is this a perfect system?  No, it's not.  But it's better, IMO, than just saying "eh" to the testing.  And yes, ongoing testing would be a really good thing to do.  As long as we have no vaccine, we need to know who needs quarantine and who doesn't.

[Porcelain]

@noodleannI should never have brought up that point. I wish I hadn't now. And I trust most of my family when it comes to important things so I would probably be in a lot more secure situation than others if a few of us attempted this in order to throw a mini birthday party etc.

[QueenDanceALot]

I think the real problem with the testing is that there is not nearly enough of it.

Not by a longshot.

[RedTop]

Free testing is not a draw for me when I have no reason to be tested.

If I began to develop symptoms, then yes, I would go to a local site for testing.

If I had reason to believe I might have had the virus months ago before it became a known threat here, I would have discussed that with my doctor by now and been in line for an antibodies test.

Even prior to this virus showing up in my county, I rarely left my house, so my exposure level to most germs, bacteria, and viruses, is low.

[QueenDanceALot]

I forgot the "perks" of getting tested today.

A bunch of hunky military guys directing traffic and doing check ins, and getting a free mask and bottle of hand sanitizer when I left.

It was all very efficient and everyone was very nice.

[germanshepherdlove]

I'll be more than happy to have a saliva test or a blood test.  Without knowing anything about the hundreds of people recenlty hired to admininster swab testing in parking lots of drug stores and clinics, my luck I'd get maybe a blackjack dealer that recently lost their job and had a one day training program.  No thanks.    

[hooked on books]

I haven't been feeling well and was tested last week. I had a throat swab and boy, she really swabbed! Tested negative so next step is cardiac catherization on Monday. Doctors are suspecting blockages. Wish me luck!!

[Leeny]

If I hadn't had the test already, my answer would still be yes. The test is exactly the same as for Influenza. Is it pleasant? No, is it important to get, yes. Especially if you think you have been exposed or are showing symptoms. This virus can be deadly as we all have seen. The test is over in seconds and gives one a piece of mind when it shows it's negative.