Article content continued
With increased testing, the data health experts gain becomes substantially more illuminating. Health experts can then relay the information to politicians, who, in turn, should be able to make informed decisions. Testing more people would enable that baseline of data to expand. Those that should be tested first would be the people already working, the essential workers. Doctors, nurses, custodians, grocery workers, bus drivers, bank tellers, or anyone who is currently working around people. They should all be tested. If one of them is found to be infected, they are placed in quarantine for 14 days, thus removing the odds of spreading the virus.
Certainly, there is a cost to producing and administering these quick tests. However, for example, quick tests within Hastings Manor would help to reduce the spread of the virus by removing infected residents. Older people in tight quarters is a recipe for the virus to spread quickly and do considerable damage, including death. The cost of preventing deaths is worth the price of tests.
The idea behind increased testing is to isolate less of the population, enabling those non-infected to return to their jobs. At the moment the percentage of people in isolation is too high to get the economy back on track. As well, schools are closed. Without schools opening, the economy is going to sputter. Too many workers rely on schools to look after their children while they are at work. Allowing students, teachers, custodians and everyone involved in operating a school without significant testing would be foolish. Anyone who showed any evidence of illness would require a test to enter a school. A large random sampling would be another option to consider. The idea would be to achieve enough negative tests, within the school area, to support its reopening. Those who tested positive would not be allowed entry for a minimum of 14 days. The alternative is to keep schools closed until next September, and hopefully by then the spread of the virus will have subsided.