Quote:
Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby
It's an interesting quandry. You make a bold statement. Using your criteria:
If my husband becomes sick with COVID-19, and HE has to be quarantined until he's healthy again, and *I* am his caretaker, and have no symptoms yet - I shouldn't be allowed to be tested for it.
And since the test is what proves that I have the virus - I can go out, go shopping for my husband, have coffee with the girls, grab a bite to eat at the fast food joint, maybe take some time away from home while the husband is well enough to care for himself, and relax with a drink at the town square.
without a care in the world because you have no proof that I have the virus.
I would have zero responsibility if every single person I interacted with got sick - because you can't prove that I had the virus.
I'd say that's pretty faulty logic, wouldn't you?
There aren't enough tests to go around. There could have been more than there are now - and in fact other countries have been much more prepared than ours is. We are JUST now starting to prepare for something that has been a problem worldwide for around a month.
Saying who should and shouldn't be allowed to get tested, and calling anyone who is concerned "paranoid" is short-sighted. You know that cashier at the store you went to this past week, who took your money and handed you your change? She has the virus. But she wasn't tested because she had no symptoms.
Good luck.
|
My point of view was that popping into the doctors for a test on the off chance you may have virus without any symptoms, would be waste of a test kit.
In your example, I would hope that you would isolate yourself whilst caring for your sick husband as a matter of course.
I would also think that a test for yourself would be obligatory in the circumstances you described.