Not much better here: You're only tested for the virus if you had contact with someone who has previously been tested positive. That's the policy. A colleague comes back from an conference (embedded systems, international attendees,...) and develops symptoms the next week - but because no-one at the conference was a confirmed positive case, he's not tested (just sent home, no quarantine). I'm now also in home office, but developed symptoms on the last day at the office (not saying it's corona, more likely my slight cold just spiked randomly).
I understand it's unlikely and not everyone who has a cold needs to be tested [-> no need to test me], there is just not enough capacity. But missing a single case like these conference-goers wreaks real havoc when combined with that policy... Well, at least the number of infected in the state stayed at 14/1M the last few days. Not sure how that's possible with exponential spread and the first general containment measures only starting next week (though today it "finally" increased to 29).
Where is here? The Danish government has moved from testing people with symptoms and people returning from high risk areas, to just testing people with symptoms. And encouraging those with mild symptoms to avoid calling hotlines, rather focusing on those who have severe symptoms, since the government no longer believes it can contain the spread.
I don't think testing provides much benefit now. Containment is not an option.
There isn't really a specific treatment plan so I don't think testing is necessary for anyone at this point.
I'd say just recommend everyone minimize social contact and self isolate if you have any symptoms at all to try to minimize the peak that hospitals are dealing with.
Hopefully there is a reliable treatment plan soon, maybe that is inexpensive with little side affects that they can just hand out like candy for everyone with any symptoms that might be COVID19.
The difference is in the quarantine: If I have to assume it's SARS2-CoV, I don't leave the house, my partner should stay at home as well because she's most likely also infected by now; also we need to get someone to bring us supplies some time the next week before ours run out. We just had that very drill a month ago due to a viral infection (medication only eased symptoms, all we had to sit it out and follow the usual hygienic/no-social-contacts rules not infect others).
Question is: What's the threshold? Can I trust external data or do I need to assume it's too imprecise?
Now if I knew that I'm most likely not infected (-> potential importers tested) I would still stay at home (in home office now anyway) and reduce social contact, but I could get supplies for family/friends who are quarantined. If I knew I wasn't infected prior to staying at home (-> everyone tested), and if I started developing symptoms, I would know that it's highly unlikely that I was infected and could thus reduce the load on the doctor/hospital (edit: I have "respiratory precondition", hence it seems I can't just say "well, I'm young and healthy, worst case I sleep it out").
I understand it's unlikely and not everyone who has a cold needs to be tested [-> no need to test me], there is just not enough capacity. But missing a single case like these conference-goers wreaks real havoc when combined with that policy... Well, at least the number of infected in the state stayed at 14/1M the last few days. Not sure how that's possible with exponential spread and the first general containment measures only starting next week (though today it "finally" increased to 29).