As far as I know the testing situation here is like everywhere else... only for people who meet exposure criteria and/or are actually sick. As I understand it,even under those very limited criteria, about 95% of the tests are coming back negative. It's a huge amount of effort for very little result? And I'd be a tremendous resource drain to test people in the population at large.

I'm curious what youd propose, if we had an instant accurate "moment in time" count of all the people who were carrying this virus, sick or not, right now. And how frequently should we re test everyone. I'm sure the number of infected people will be far higher every time.

Should we divert resources away from treating those who are sick? We are stretched thin as it is. Should we round up and quarantine everyone who tests positive? Are you ok with enforcing that? Weve had quite a few cases of known positive cases refusing quarantine so far. Can only imagine what's it be like if we were telling asymptomatic people they had to stay locked up. Cant see the benefit of testing vs just treating sick people, no matter what they're sick with, and more importantly, focusing on public health behaviors to reduce transmission, create buffers for the most vulnerable (sick and elderly), and promote healthy behaviors that help strengthen the immune system over all, like health eating, sleep, and exercise.