[MandoMan]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

Th new guidelines do not make any sense to me, especially if you know you have been exposed to the virus. According to these new guidelines, a person who is asymptomatic will be denied a test even if they are aware they have been exposed to the virus. Can someone explain the rationale for this absurdity?

C.D.C. Now Says People Without Covid-19 Symptoms Do Not Need Testing - The New York Times

Sources in the CDC revealed on Wednesday that the Director of the C.D.C. was under heavy pressure from the White House to make this change. The hope is that a lot of the positive tests would never show up if people weren’t being tested. However, the problem is that asymptomatic positives can still spread it to those they live with, kiss, hug, talk with face to face, eat with, drive with, even if they aren’t coughing. Meanwhile, evidence shows that people who are positive are most contagious BEFORE they have any symptoms. So, if they can be detected when they DO have the disease but BEFORE they show any symptoms at all, it might be possible to get them to quarantine instead of dropping by The Villages to eat that home-cooked dinner with Grandma and Grandpa. Thus, early testing now may decrease case later and save your life.

From the article you linked to: “Models suggest that about half of transmission events can be traced back to individuals still in this so-called pre-symptomatic stage, before they start to feel ill — if they ever feel sick at all.”
Top U.S. Officials Told C.D.C. to Soften Coronavirus Testing Guidelines - The New York Times

[CFrance]

Originally Posted by vilger

There is too much testing in the U.S. for COVID 19. If we reduce the number of people being tested, we can reduce the number of positive tests, and thus reduce the incidence of COVID in the population.

Similarly, there is too much screening for colon cancer in the U.S. especially for people over 50. If we reduce the amount of screening, we can reduce the incidence of colon cancer in the population.

I assume you're being sarcastic. If not, maybe from another planet.

[Scorpyo]

Originally Posted by vilger

There is too much testing in the U.S. for COVID 19. If we reduce the number of people being tested, we can reduce the number of positive tests, and thus reduce the incidence of COVID in the population.

Similarly, there is too much screening for colon cancer in the U.S. especially for people over 50. If we reduce the amount of screening, we can reduce the incidence of colon cancer in the population.

For those who were confused with this post think about it. Let’s say no tests for Covid even after a person dies. What would the death certificate say. Cause of death respiratory or heart failure probably. It wouldn’t be Covid because he wasn’t tested for that. So no tests for Covid and we’ve eliminated Covid as a disease and cause of death. See how brilliant we are we just cured Covid. I did my part so could somebody kindly come up with a cure for death.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Kilmacowen

This is dated Aug 24 new recommendations are Aug 26. No need for test even if exposed. Sounds fishy.

The recommendations aren't August 26. They are August 24. The New York Times didn't publish the article (or op-ed - as I said it was behind a paywall) until 2 days later. The most current update from the CDC is August 24.

And no, it doesn't say there IS no need for the exposed. It says there MAY NOT BE A NEED even if exposed, if the person is asymptomatic and not at risk.

There are criteria. You have to be able to check off all the categories as applied to you. If you don't, then you probably should be tested. If you do check off all the categories, then you MIGHT NOT need the test - but you MAY get tested anyway. No one is forbidding anyone from getting tested.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by vilger

There is too much testing in the U.S. for COVID 19. If we reduce the number of people being tested, we can reduce the number of positive tests, and thus reduce the incidence of COVID in the population.

Similarly, there is too much screening for colon cancer in the U.S. especially for people over 50. If we reduce the amount of screening, we can reduce the incidence of colon cancer in the population.

I bet this would work with deaths too! I think you're on to something. If we have fewer coroners showing up whenever people die, we might show fewer incidences of death.

I like this!

[Girlcopper]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

Th new guidelines do not make any sense to me, especially if you know you have been exposed to the virus. According to these new guidelines, a person who is asymptomatic will be denied a test even if they are aware they have been exposed to the virus. Can someone explain the rationale for this absurdity?

C.D.C. Now Says People Without Covid-19 Symptoms Do Not Need Testing - The New York Times

Says you dont need to be tested not that you cant. So? If you go into crowds and get infected. Shame on you. Protect yourself and you dont have reason for concern

[Scorpyo]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

I bet this would work with deaths too! I think you're on to something. If we have fewer coroners showing up whenever people die, we might show fewer incidences of death.

I like this!

Now you’re thinking

Originally Posted by Pamelah

Granted I just woke up but... can someone explain how reducing testing for Covid and colon cancer will reduce the number of cases and potential deaths?

It was menat to be sarcastic, hence the colon cancer remark.

[yamma3]

I will believe that testing asymptomatic people who may have been exposed to Covid19 is not necessary when the white house stops testing asymptomatic staff.

[jmounset]

Originally Posted by gatorbill1

You hit it right on the head

One does not reduce the number of people with the disease, a person just doesn’t know they have it!

[merrymini]

So someone can spread the disease even without showing symptoms if exposed to someone who has it, that doesn't have symptoms, and we should all quarantine. Okayyyyy!

[dillywho]

Originally Posted by nancymiller217@yahoo.com

Easy. In many areas, they still are having trouble keeping up with the demand for tests (supplies, lab capacity, etc.), so they are trying to discourage people from getting tests. Have you not heard that in some areas test results are taking 14+ days?

If you KNOW you have been exposed, you should self-quarantine. You may be asymptomatic, but you can’t spread the virus if you quarantine.

Could it be that the negative results in asymptomatic persons are nurturing a false sense of safety? With results, most likely both positive and negative, taking so long someone could be asymptomatic and positive by the time the results are received. Seems to me that there is no easy answer.

[nick demis]

Originally Posted by coffeebean

Th new guidelines do not make any sense to me, especially if you know you have been exposed to the virus. According to these new guidelines, a person who is asymptomatic will be denied a test even if they are aware they have been exposed to the virus. Can someone explain the rationale for this absurdity?

C.D.C. Now Says People Without Covid-19 Symptoms Do Not Need Testing - The New York Times

The new guideline is that you are NOT required to take a test if you have come into contact with someone that May have the virus. And the only way you know if you are asymptomatic is to have had a test. Lets try to keep from spreading false rumors no matter what your political belief are.

[Dana1963]

If we eliminated all testing COVID infections will be 0 PANDEMIC OVER. Easy way to open country and start this BS all over again!

[EviesGP]

I have multiple problems with this pandemic, and how it's being handled(at multiple levels). First, it was downplayed BY ALL SIDES! Then, it spread, and suddenly the finger pointing started! So, yes, politics is all over this. Then, it was states' screaming for PPE and ventilators. Now, that's not an issue?! Now, it's the testing and the vaccine(s)! Here's my problem with testing(methods/results). I know of people(more than one) that tested positive, only to then test negative, with no positive antibodies? When they called the county health dept, to state they believe they were a false-positive, as they were asymptomatic, and no antibodies. They were told there is no such thing, their antibody test was too early, and to just quarantine. After 2 more weeks, they re-tested negative, and still no antibodies? I have read multiple articles that say that there is faulty testing, as some tests were tested with only symptomatic people, and rushed thru?! So, with all these false positives, who is removing those numbers from the positive counts? Finally, there is almost NO contact tracing(people aren't being called?), so how are we ever going get hold of this mess? Just wait til the vaccine(s) emerge, and see how the politics gets with that. Oh, and then the election?!