"First, probably those exhibiting symptoms (to know who may have spread it, for followup with those most directly exposed and encourage self-quarantining until testing can be performed)," This possibility never existed as there were never an adequate supply of tests. Remember 20, 000 Americans in Wuhan. We did not have that number of kits. Additionally people coming in from Italy and other nations
as well. Please apply a different strategy.

@Flowerwall I have no idea what you're asking. Right now, in the situation in which we find ourselves, whom do we prioritize? More tests are becoming available because of relaxed rules about who can develop testing kits and perform testing without requiring FDA approval, though we're still behind where we need to be. I don't know what difference it makes how many Americans there are in Wuhan or what we did or didn't have the capacity to do months ago. My answer stands on how to prioritize.

@Allamanda Not sure why you are questioning that.

@Allamanda What is the covid testing like in your area? How many cases are there in your country/town/ county? Know anyone sick? Tested positive?

@Flowerwall
"Now I am spending time talking about why I said something instead of talking about the hellish disarray of covid testing in the US. Please focus your attention where it would be most useful."

Why did you bother asking the question at all if you just wanted to highlight the problems? You presented what sounded like a serious question about how to prioritize limited resources in the situation we now find ourselves in and asked for explanations to defend our reasoning. Now you're saying that we shouldn't have been answering the question you asked because you really just meant to talk about the "hellish disarray of covid testing in the US."

@resserts I do want to talk about "the hellish disarray". Are hellish disarrays important topics? Well sure when people's lives are at stake. Okay, I probably didn't make it clear, but I will now.

A) My purpose here is trying to make sense of what has occurred
B) How do we do that?
C) We look at what has occurred and figure it out.
D) I ask "how should we prioritize"
E) Idea generated
F) Apply it to the real life scenario
G) If we are successful, it makes sense!

@Flowerwall Had your intent been expressed in your original post, I'd have passed it by and not wasted your time.

@resserts Why? You don't think mentally clarifying who should be prioritized for testing is important? Or you don't want to think about reality?

@Flowerwall I already told you who I'd prioritize for testing, and you said that's not what you wanted to discuss, and now you're once again making it the focus of your question. Your list of topics and the "hellish disarray" aren't interesting or informative to me. No amount of debate changes what's already transpired, and it will be up to teams of scientific and medical specialists to review huge amounts of data to determine exactly what happened and to learn how best to improve response in the future. I won't be part of their important work because I don't have training or experience in the fields that have a direct say in protocol. I can determine if I think I should get tested in light of limited testing availability, or if I can self-isolate so I'm not using resources others might need, but I can't change the past or what happens in China. I'm not going to continue this discussion, as it won't bear fruit. Please save yourself any further time and effort.

That may be what you would have liked to have happen, but in reality you most likely would have fallen in the group of Americans who were NOT tested. I think the backtracking of numbers in the end of the number of sick on a given day compared to the number of available tests would reveal it.

@Flowerwall Really!