I started to think with people being isolated (thousands in hotels), and some of those people being doctors and possibly other medical staff, why can't they test to see if these people are positive or not after perhaps 3-5 days. Then if people prove to be negative they can go on to assist others.
I can't be sure, but it probably all revolves around the word prove.
I've been trying to find articles that would let me know the minimum time it takes for a person with the coronavirus to test positive. I really haven't found anything that I'd call conclusive, if anything, I've found more articles indicating problems with tests or testing. The headline for the following article was Are coronavirus tests flawed?
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51491763
From reading the article I realised the following:
Coronavirus is a respiratory virus. That means our breathing system.
The tests currently performed using a swab is taken at the back of the throat and nasal passage. If it's too early in the person's infection the same may not be sufficient.
If the person isn't coughing this may reduce the amount of sample in the area being tested.
The person doing the testing may not be sampling sufficiently.
No test is 100% perfect
This following article and particularly at the end where they state the structure of testing is the tests are 95% specific and 95% sensitive helps us to understand that out of 100 people, 5 people may be positive for coronavirus even though they test negative. When we're talking about thousands, tens of thousand of tests and possibly hundreds of thousands of test, that's potentially tens of thousand of tests not picking up a person is actually positive for coronavirus.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2020/03/26/negative-coronavirus-test-result-doesnt-always-mean-you-arent-infected/
As I read more I start to understand the science is not perfect and for this reason we need to be more cautious, to be isolated longer to be more confident, social distance further, to err on the side of caution for our own good.
Kelvin Eldridge
I can't be sure, but it probably all revolves around the word prove.
I've been trying to find articles that would let me know the minimum time it takes for a person with the coronavirus to test positive. I really haven't found anything that I'd call conclusive, if anything, I've found more articles indicating problems with tests or testing. The headline for the following article was Are coronavirus tests flawed?
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-51491763
From reading the article I realised the following:
Coronavirus is a respiratory virus. That means our breathing system.
The tests currently performed using a swab is taken at the back of the throat and nasal passage. If it's too early in the person's infection the same may not be sufficient.
If the person isn't coughing this may reduce the amount of sample in the area being tested.
The person doing the testing may not be sampling sufficiently.
No test is 100% perfect
This following article and particularly at the end where they state the structure of testing is the tests are 95% specific and 95% sensitive helps us to understand that out of 100 people, 5 people may be positive for coronavirus even though they test negative. When we're talking about thousands, tens of thousand of tests and possibly hundreds of thousands of test, that's potentially tens of thousand of tests not picking up a person is actually positive for coronavirus.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2020/03/26/negative-coronavirus-test-result-doesnt-always-mean-you-arent-infected/
As I read more I start to understand the science is not perfect and for this reason we need to be more cautious, to be isolated longer to be more confident, social distance further, to err on the side of caution for our own good.
Kelvin Eldridge
No comments:
Post a Comment