Still wrong. Reread the second to last line of your original post.
>There's a reason why screening tests need to be highly accurate.
They don't. That's the point. It doesn't need to be 99.9% accurate unless the disease is so aggressive that you're all dead anyway.
There's the contention. The goal is exponential decay, and the only scalable method is to reduce the reproduction rate. Even if you don't drop below 1, a smaller exponential still grows exponentially slower.
Screening tests need to be highly accurate OR you need to be fully aware and manage the fallout from false negatives, which is the point I'm making. First, screening tests have costs, that's why many diseases don't have screening tests. It's what's drummed into us in medical school. Sometimes the medical community backs away from a screening test like has been done in many areas with prostate exams. The cost/benefit isn't worth it. One cost in the COVID case is use of PPE, health care worker time, and test availability hence why CA is backing away from broad testing to triage tests to in-hospital use. Another cost is the possible grouping of symptomatic patients together as they wait for tests. Sure, if rollout can be perfect this isn't a problem, but medicine is about what happens in the real world where delivery is not perfect. By the way, NYC and CA medical community is saying the cost/benefit isn't good enough for broad COVID screening at this time. I'm sure you know better because you know the math of disease spread and are completely unable to grok other reasons why'd they do that.
Second and less talked about, there are consequences of a false negative population which is NOT handled appropriately -- like not letting people know if they test negative they STILL should stay away from high-risk population or take precautions like you still could be infected. That directive has been circulated a little but most people I've seen don't know that. The news reporters don't ask Pence about serial tests. They seem satisfied he had one negative test.
Once again, and I don't know how many times I have to say this, I'm not against widespread testing of the current RT-PCR swab, particularly if we had lots of tests, didn't have PPE shortages in the area, and guidance was given to all those receiving results. Your contention that accuracy doesn't matter is incorrect. It matters because false negatives matter and it's great to do testing to decrease the spread, which is pretty obvious, but you absolutely need additional management depending on accuracy. Like not setting the standard of working with high-risk patients as a single negative test. They need to be tested serially and hopefully get a more accurate test for nursing home workers in future. Like not assuming Pence isn't spreading disease because of a single negative test. He could be one of the many asymptomatic infected. This has been my point for this entire thread. I'll leave you to argue something different.
>Re-read the last line of my original post.
Still wrong. Reread the second to last line of your original post.
>There's a reason why screening tests need to be highly accurate.
They don't. That's the point. It doesn't need to be 99.9% accurate unless the disease is so aggressive that you're all dead anyway.
There's the contention. The goal is exponential decay, and the only scalable method is to reduce the reproduction rate. Even if you don't drop below 1, a smaller exponential still grows exponentially slower.