The headline made me very concerned but then first two paragraphs made it make perfect sense.
The title would be infinitely less clickbait bullshit if you added one word to the end:
“In alarming move, CDC says people exposed to Covid-19 do not need testing immediately”
Even better:
“CDC says people exposed to COVID-19 should not be tested immediately after exposure”.
The alarming part is why would they put out this guidance without specifying how long to wait. Seems worse than useless as it empowers everyone to make whatever policy they want for how long to wait and then finger point at how they followed CDC guidance in doing so.
Could it possibly be because of the new plasma transfusion treatment where a Covid-19 sick person is given plasma from a person who has Covid-19 antibodies? Perhaps they don't want to get a huge database of possible donors.
That headline ("alarming") is just not helpful. Standard epidemic science indicates once a virus with R0>1.5 grows past 1% community transmission, eradication through lockdowns and full test and contact trace will be futile and a tremendous waste of resources better focused more productively.
If someone is not in an at-risk group (elderly/frail, immuno-compromised, multi-comorbidities) nor a medical provider or care-giver to the at-risk - as long as they remain asymptomatic, there's no reason to test them. They should simply stay away from the at-risk and monitor for symptoms.
It was odd to me that the CDC changed their guidance on this a few months ago from standard best practice. Now they are just putting it back to what it was.
5 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 25.7 ms ] threadThe title would be infinitely less clickbait bullshit if you added one word to the end:
“In alarming move, CDC says people exposed to Covid-19 do not need testing immediately”
Even better:
“CDC says people exposed to COVID-19 should not be tested immediately after exposure”.
The alarming part is why would they put out this guidance without specifying how long to wait. Seems worse than useless as it empowers everyone to make whatever policy they want for how long to wait and then finger point at how they followed CDC guidance in doing so.
If someone is not in an at-risk group (elderly/frail, immuno-compromised, multi-comorbidities) nor a medical provider or care-giver to the at-risk - as long as they remain asymptomatic, there's no reason to test them. They should simply stay away from the at-risk and monitor for symptoms.
It was odd to me that the CDC changed their guidance on this a few months ago from standard best practice. Now they are just putting it back to what it was.