Discussion»Statements»Rosie's Corner» By the time you show the symptoms of COVID 19 you've gone for DAYS infecting those with whom you come into contact. IS THAT WISE?
By the time you show the symptoms of COVID 19 you've gone for DAYS infecting those with whom you come into contact. IS THAT WISE?
Should you get tested BEFORE symptoms show up? Or d'ya like the possibility of infecting others? Misery loves company and by golly you got this you're gonna share everywhere you can. Smart. Wise. Genius.
The disease is thought to spread mainly from person-to-person.
Between people who are in close contact with one another (within about 6 feet)
People are thought to be most contagious when they are most symptomatic (the sickest).
Some spread might be possible before people show symptoms; there have been reports of this occurring with this new coronavirus, but this is not thought to be the main way the virus spreads.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/about/transmission.html
This post was edited by my2cents at March 13, 2020 9:07 AM MDT
I don't see a point getting tested before you have symptoms, unless you know you've been around an infected person.
If you haven't, then you can't rely on a negative result to say you didn't pick it up later. And that is how most people think: "I tested negative, so I'm okay." No, that means you were okay at that time. Not now.
True Walt. Why test for HIV if you have no symptoms? Because every sex partner you have you will infect. Whatever. Different strokes etcetera etcetera etcetera. Thank you for your rationalization justification for not getting tested. It's just as hotsy totsy artsy fartsy as my supporting testing. It's a DRAW. SIGH.
This post was edited by RosieG at March 13, 2020 8:11 AM MDT
If I use the HIV example ... it may make sense to be tested when you have sex with unknown partners (you don't know if they have it). But you would have to be tested every time you had sex. You couldn't do one, then think you're forever safe because that one was negative.
Same with Covid-19. You would have to test every time you were around anybody. EG: your neighbor might not have it when you visit him today - but he might in a couple days.
Even with health insurance, I can't afford that much testing.
btw - Have you heard some school districts are debating whether or not to close, because there's a health risk either way? They stay open, and risk spreading the virus. They close, and risk students not getting adequate meals.
As far as your comments regarding school closings, we have the same problem with kids not getting meals. The City of New York has advised that any child who would get meals at school will continue to get them if the school closes. I suspect they will set up areas where meals can be eaten or taken home because there are probably too many kids to deliver them house to house. The important point is that they will not go hungry.
Thank you for your reply Walt. So your solution is to not be tested because once is not enough so why test at all? Hmm. If it works for you logically by all means go for it. It doesn't work for me. :(
Walt O'Reagun 