RCR06 said:
Reveille said:
RCR06 said:
I read somewhere to be considered recovered you had to test negative twice(could be mistaken) after previously testing positive. We don't have enough tests now to test if people have it or not so I imagine they aren't testing afterward at this point.
The problem is the test has a low sensitivity of around 70%. So even when it is negative there is a 30% you still have the disease.
Is the test sensitivity the main problem with not showing people recovered or is it in addition to not having enough tests?
I think the test prioritization may be significant here, plus a time issue. Recovered should be a virus free state, not just out of critical care. So the question becomes do you use a test to determine if someone has it, or use the test to determine if someone is recovered. Plus, all the people sent home to self isolate won't necessarily come back to be retested.
Alternatively you could assume that if you are alive after 4 or 5 weeks, you have recovered, But that backs us out to infections that stated in Feb. given the lack of testing back then, there aren't a whole lot of positive cases to be recovered from that time frame.,