Some of Roger Williams, however, were furious and confused. According to a person working in the building, who requested anonymity to avoid retiring from the university, a few faculty members at the Marine Science Building were fed up with the incident, which they said disrupted classes, disrupted productivity and disrupted emotional well-being. Is. . Others expressed concern that faculty members and students would see the program as an excuse to skip the test and gather in nearby quarters, the person said.
Brian Williams, the university’s chief of staff, admits the incidents caused some stress. He said he could not provide further details, as the university is still reviewing the matter.
However, laboratories specializing in diagnostics have long had protocols for preventing such phenomena, “between epidemiological and pathological testing,” we have never taken a position where many labs work on pathology. “, Clinical microbiologists. As a result, there are some contingency plans to deal with such unusual testing errors.
Roger Williams, one of the 20 people who tested positive, said, “Initially I was not told I would not respond,” said the man, who asked to remain anonymous to defend his position at the university. That decision was quickly reversed, and the person underwent a negative test, ending with a “stressful emotional roller-coaster.” But only one subset of the 20 people who tested positive was given the opportunity to take another test, raising ethical concerns with the state health department, the person said.
Edward Hurt Rotte, the university’s senior associate dean for the biology program, said the events at Brown also “caused a stir in staff and faculty.” A few people who tested positive and suspected the cause was malicious, “requested a response,” and were able to do so, he said. But many organizations do not have the resources to generously test, making it difficult to issue follow-up diagnostics.
The guidelines, published by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, also recommend re-implanting people within 90 days of a positive outcome. There are no obvious exceptions to potential contamination. Many individuals whose tests were potentially contaminated stopped testing in many organizations, for weeks or months because their positive results were considered legitimate, despite the possibility that they are still susceptible to the virus.
A faculty member at Roger Williams, who was among those who tested positive in mid-October 20, was able to resume regular screenings. But when he tested positive again recently, health officials told him that according to an email sent to some people in the building, they did not need to be separated.
