> If the population assumes they've tested positive, and acts like they are
That is a fair point, and I agree that testing is most important when there are a limited number of cases - a stage which was essentially missed by Western governments but hopefully will have another opportunity.
I don't agree that populations are acting like they have tested positive, though, or can do that en masse.
If you know yourself to be positive, you should ideally be taking stricter measures - like having people leaving food at your doorstep.
Only people who are not infectious should be involved in food and resource distribution.
In order to enact that, you would need to actually test.
That is a fair point, and I agree that testing is most important when there are a limited number of cases - a stage which was essentially missed by Western governments but hopefully will have another opportunity.
I don't agree that populations are acting like they have tested positive, though, or can do that en masse.
If you know yourself to be positive, you should ideally be taking stricter measures - like having people leaving food at your doorstep.
Only people who are not infectious should be involved in food and resource distribution.
In order to enact that, you would need to actually test.