You seem to be looking at this purely from the point of numbers. Having to self-isolate for two weeks is a minor inconvenience when compared with contracting a disease that kills 1% of people.Originally Posted by Witton Park
It's not solely about how large the numbers are, it's about how large the numbers are multiplied by the effect of those numbers.
To put it another way:
In situations/areas with high covid levels, mass screening leads to:
False negatives (relatively common) multiplied by a substantial number of people dying = very serious
False positives (more common than false negatives) multiplied by a substantial number needing to self isolate = significant hassle, but not as much of an issue as the impact of false negatives
Whereas:
In situations/areas with very low covid levels:
false negatives (less common, because fewer people have it) = less serious than above
false positives same as above and [relatively] more of a problem when viewed against very low numbers of false negatives.
Do you see what I mean? The conclusion I would draw is that mass testing is a good idea in areas of high covid infection.
