LogFAQs > #936114007

DPsx7 posted...

papercup posted...

There's no such thing as "too much testing", jfc.

Yes there is. Testing supplies are limited right? Early detection for those at risk is better than using them on the jerks who deserve it by not staying home.

New Jersey is explicitly limiting testing for exactly this reason. They're strongly suggesting that you don't waste everyone's time and resources getting tested unless you've literally been in a high-risk situation, have been actively exposed to someone who had symptoms, or you're starting to exhibit symptoms yourself. Even then, you have to register in advance to apply to be tested if you're under 65 (anyone over 65 can basically just show up at testing locations as a walk-in because they're high-risk).

It's the same reason why people are recommended to stay home unless they absolutely can't - the idea is to "flatten the curve". Reduce active infections at one time to keep hospitals and other facilities from being overwhelmed, especially because there are already medical supply shortages. It's actually a deliberate trade-off - you lengthen the overall time scale of infection to decrease the immediate spike. In theory, if effective medication or vaccines can be created quickly, flattening the curve increases the number of people who will be able to benefit from those things later. You don't want immediate spikes consuming all available resources, and thus run out for more crucial cases in the future.

Everyone rushing to get tested at once even if they have no meaningful reason to do so other than personal fear would cause far more problems than it actually solves.
---

"This calls for a particularly subtle blend of psychology and extreme violence."
--- Vyvyan, The Young Ones