#326202
Postby Bouleversee » July 14th, 2020, 9:42 pm
swill453 -
I read daily reports on the progress of coronavirus research from2 sources but I hadn't seen those two. If that is definitely true, I agree that testing before manifestation of symptoms is pointless until such time as we can get a better test. However, I am struggling to make sense of the following:
"The researchers estimated that those tested with SARS-CoV-2 in the four days after infection were 67% more likely to test negative, even if they had the virus. When the average patient began displaying symptoms of the virus, the false-negative rate was 38%. The test performed best eight days after infection (on average, three days after symptom onset), but even then had a false negative rate of 20%, meaning one in five people who had the virus had a negative test result." Are we to assume that these people were deliberately infected with the virus (brave souls!)? Otherwise, how would anyone know when they had been infected if tests were negative and they were asymptomatic.
Anyway, to be on the safe side, it would seem sensible that travellers from the countries specified should get themselves home (or wherever) pdq and self-isolate for the requisite period. Having said that, I am aware that some research, carried out by students, is nonsense. Remember when we were told eggs were bad for us? I could quote a research questionnaire sent to my late husband some time after he had had most of his sacrum resected, but it is rather too much information. Suffice it to say that had he answered the questions it would have made a nonsense of the research and when I queried it I was told it had been sent in error and we received an apology.
If negative tests can't be relied on, it's no wonder that the incoming holiday travel trade has died a death. Who would come here for a holiday knowing that they would be locked in (where?) for a fortnight?