Except we can't test everyone as many people will not want to get tested. Hourly workers without paid sick leave will not get tested if a positive result means they have to not get paid for 14+ days. They cant afford it. Not going to work means their kids don't eat. So they go to work sick and everyone else around them gets it.

The poor without insurance also cannot afford the test or treatment.

Testing is important but providing real benefits to those that are potentially infected will incentivize them to get tested. Otherwise we are going to struggle with getting this contained.

Not in the US, not really a big problem across Europe.

But you are right. So right. Because I would do the same if I were in that position. And again the weakest people and families are hit worst. Maybe it serves as a wake-up call why universal health care is important. It enables so many things, not just robust disease response.

Edit: Fixed the first sentence.

What is the argument against testing everyone? If it lasts 2 days on surfaces, it seems like a matter of when not if you get it.

Best we can do is "flatten the curve" by isolating people as much as possible. Realistically, all the hand washing and testing does next to nothing in terms of modifying behaviour.

Testing would allow to be way more aggressive where it matters. Also reaction time could be quicker.

Could be so, that once a certain number of people are infected, full quarantine measures will be taken anyway. So on could just jump to these measures right away. Which would leave increased transparency as the main benefit. Would still be worth it, even if actual countermeasures don't necessarily change.

How accurate are these tests?