In many cases testing shouldn't actually change the result, either. Suspected patients need to self-isolate, regardless of whether they actually are positive or not. Being positive doesn't necessarily require additional treatment and anyone who is sick enough to need hospitalization will need it whether they are positive or not. The main benefits I see of wider testing are a) better handle on spread of virus, b) despite the above, knowing one is positive could make the patient take self-isolation more seriously ("oh it's just a cold, I'll continue as normal" doesn't bode well).

I don't see much point in using limited resources just to satisfy the curiosity of people who are able to isolate themselves and recover unaided. In fact I had something with COVID-19 symptoms a week ago and I am certainly curious to know if I did have it or not. But I have since recovered and nobody I was with (so far) is sick so there's not a lot to gain by me being tested.

Feds have failed. We need to allow the states to determine who can run tests.

Yeah, but won't they at least put you in line if they intend to test? Sounds like the lack of capacity is a good excuse to lower the statistics.

My state is monitoring more people than they are testing:

https://www.michigan.gov/coronavirus/

I don't know what the decision matrix is, I am just saying that lack of testing capacity is a real part of it.

The testing capacity exists, if you count devices that have (still) not been approved for use. That is the primary nature of of the failure here.

This is a state Senator saying that there isn't enough reagent that is needed to prepare the samples for testing:

https://twitter.com/JeffJacksonNC/status/1238811865481990144

So if that is true, the testing capacity isn't going to be limited just by device approvals. Also need to establish the protocols for other reagents and so on.

Citation please?

Why does it seem like people are using this rapidly spreading deadly virus as an argument for their political views...