I am truly baffled as to who you think is being tested for Covid.
I work in Hollywood, and I have been tested dozens of times, just about weekly, because a recent (24-hrs) negative test is REQUIRED to go to any stage or even office building or shop. Surely workplace requirements are the majority (maybe vast majority) of all testing. So I would think changes in # of people returning to work, or changes in employer policies, would be causing weekly fluctuations in # of tests, not any medical reason (or any reason based in reality.)
I cannot imagine I would ever seek a test unless it was required. And only the fact that we are a very small operation and my employer REALLY needs me on these on-sites, keeps me from refusing.
Also, a VERY IMPORTANT fact that I never hear mentioned:
At a nominal cost of $175/test, (paid for by Somebody), testing companies are raking in huge amounts of cash. They have 100% incentive to make sure testing continues to be mandatory.
I will also point out that the company used by Los Angeles County when they were doing testing at Dodger Stadium (Oct 2020 was my experience) has been in business since … March of 2020. And their Privacy Policy section of their website was a page where the <TITLE> or <HEADER> tag still said “Billing” because obviously the Billing section was done first, and somebody copied it as a template but didn’t remember to change the top. That’s how well thought out all of this was.
That said, thank you for being just about the only writer who is both rational and honest. I trust you. That means more than it ever has.
Just as a counterpoint to “I cannot imagine I would ever seek a test unless it was required”—but with an important caveat—here are a couple of recent times when people in my household (me and my wife, both aged around 50, both fully vaccinated; teenage daughter, not vaccinated) have been tested:
We were going to visit my parents, who are in their late 70s. This involved an (intra-national) plane flight. We tested ourselves a day or two before leaving home. (A day or two rather than on the day, so that if we tested positive we could get more reliable PCR testing done.) Purpose of testing: reduce opportunities to give COVID-19 to seventysomething-year-old parents.
Shortly after getting back, my wife found that she had a very runny nose and felt generally not very well. She tested herself. Purpose of testing: personal peace of mind (if negative) and knowing to avoid contact with others (if positive), especially as there was a social event she was planning to go to. (The test was negative but she skipped the social event anyway because she was feeling too grotty. The rest of us didn’t show any sign of catching whatever she had.)
The important caveat: these are rapid lateral flow tests, done at home, which are available for free in the UK. They have a high false negative rate (ballpark estimate: if you have COVID-19 and are infectious, there’s maybe a 50% chance they’ll catch it); I don’t know about the false positive rate. I’m not sure whether these, or anything roughly equivalent, are readily available in the US; obviously the cost/benefit tradeoffs are different if getting tested means driving somewhere and paying $175 than if you can do it at home for free with the total inconvenience being sticking something up your nose and waiting half an hour.
This sort of testing seems pretty obvious to me, and a long way from being so pointless as to make it hard to imagine why one would do it. We would prefer not to give COVID-19 to others, if we get it. We would prefer to know, if we get it. We would prefer to know (or at least have some evidence) if we haven’t got it despite some reason for suspicion that we might have it. BUT, again, this is quick-and-cheap-and-convenient testing, not hopefully more accurate slow and expensive and inconvenient testing. I bet that is indeed almost always done because there’s a requirement to do it (for the workplace, or maybe for some plane flights, etc.).
Zvi,
I am truly baffled as to who you think is being tested for Covid.
I work in Hollywood, and I have been tested dozens of times, just about weekly, because a recent (24-hrs) negative test is REQUIRED to go to any stage or even office building or shop. Surely workplace requirements are the majority (maybe vast majority) of all testing. So I would think changes in # of people returning to work, or changes in employer policies, would be causing weekly fluctuations in # of tests, not any medical reason (or any reason based in reality.)
I cannot imagine I would ever seek a test unless it was required. And only the fact that we are a very small operation and my employer REALLY needs me on these on-sites, keeps me from refusing.
Also, a VERY IMPORTANT fact that I never hear mentioned:
At a nominal cost of $175/test, (paid for by Somebody), testing companies are raking in huge amounts of cash. They have 100% incentive to make sure testing continues to be mandatory.
I will also point out that the company used by Los Angeles County when they were doing testing at Dodger Stadium (Oct 2020 was my experience) has been in business since … March of 2020. And their Privacy Policy section of their website was a page where the <TITLE> or <HEADER> tag still said “Billing” because obviously the Billing section was done first, and somebody copied it as a template but didn’t remember to change the top. That’s how well thought out all of this was.
That said, thank you for being just about the only writer who is both rational and honest. I trust you. That means more than it ever has.
BR
Just as a counterpoint to “I cannot imagine I would ever seek a test unless it was required”—but with an important caveat—here are a couple of recent times when people in my household (me and my wife, both aged around 50, both fully vaccinated; teenage daughter, not vaccinated) have been tested:
We were going to visit my parents, who are in their late 70s. This involved an (intra-national) plane flight. We tested ourselves a day or two before leaving home. (A day or two rather than on the day, so that if we tested positive we could get more reliable PCR testing done.) Purpose of testing: reduce opportunities to give COVID-19 to seventysomething-year-old parents.
Shortly after getting back, my wife found that she had a very runny nose and felt generally not very well. She tested herself. Purpose of testing: personal peace of mind (if negative) and knowing to avoid contact with others (if positive), especially as there was a social event she was planning to go to. (The test was negative but she skipped the social event anyway because she was feeling too grotty. The rest of us didn’t show any sign of catching whatever she had.)
The important caveat: these are rapid lateral flow tests, done at home, which are available for free in the UK. They have a high false negative rate (ballpark estimate: if you have COVID-19 and are infectious, there’s maybe a 50% chance they’ll catch it); I don’t know about the false positive rate. I’m not sure whether these, or anything roughly equivalent, are readily available in the US; obviously the cost/benefit tradeoffs are different if getting tested means driving somewhere and paying $175 than if you can do it at home for free with the total inconvenience being sticking something up your nose and waiting half an hour.
This sort of testing seems pretty obvious to me, and a long way from being so pointless as to make it hard to imagine why one would do it. We would prefer not to give COVID-19 to others, if we get it. We would prefer to know, if we get it. We would prefer to know (or at least have some evidence) if we haven’t got it despite some reason for suspicion that we might have it. BUT, again, this is quick-and-cheap-and-convenient testing, not hopefully more accurate slow and expensive and inconvenient testing. I bet that is indeed almost always done because there’s a requirement to do it (for the workplace, or maybe for some plane flights, etc.).
I’d love it if someone could work out a system where you pay $X*p where $X is the coat of quarantining and p is the probability of testing positive.