India has treated 14000 people but only 250 were confirmed. This shows that India doesn't need to rest more. If the ratio of detection to rest increases, then more testing is needed
So ratio of positive results to tests done is more important than ratio of tests done to overall population?
By following that logic, you will miss lots and lots of positive cases, and the amount of positive cases missed will be proportionate to your total population.
Remind me, India is the world's MOST POPULOUS democracy right?
India will miss lots of positive cases, who will infect lots of other Indians who may have been saved from infection if India tested more.
Your comments betray a complete misunderstanding of how public health responses to virus outbreaks take place.
We know the real reasons of course that India is not testing more people. Everyone knows. So you can drop this needless charade that "low positive rate justifies low testing rate". Total nonsense. Why do screening programmes exist for nasty diseases in western countries if your assertion is true? Why screen hundreds of thousands every year for cancers, Downs syndrome etc etc?
The reality is that India, like Pakistan (so don't assume I'm just picking on India here) has third world infrastructure (and a population with third world mentality which compounds the problem), hence attempts to control an outbreak or even treat all positively tested patients who are symptomatic will fail. Our hospitals will be overwhelmed within days, while European ones at least lasted a couple of weeks.
