But, while other public health experts generally agreed with Ting's point, they were frustrated that the CDC's new guidance did not also require negative test results. Dr. Michael Mina, a Harvard epidemiologist and long-time advocate of rapid testing, called the new guidance "reckless."
He noted that while some people may be infectious for only three days, some may be infectious for longer periods, even up to 12 days. "I absolutely don’t want to sit next to someone who turned [positive] five days ago and hasn't tested [negative]," Mina wrote on Twitter. Requiring a negative test result to leave isolation early is "just smart," he concluded.
I wonder why the CDC did not also require a negative test?
Gounder and others pointed out that the CDC may not have included testing requirements in their update because the country is currently seeing shortages of rapid tests and long lines at testing centers. "CDC's isolation policy is being driven by a scarcity of rapid antigen tests," she concluded. But, Mina pushed back on this excuse, calling it an "artificial" problem stemming from a failure to fortify testing capacity earlier in the pandemic.
Oh, that's right. Because testing in America is an absolute disaster at every level.