The point probably is that your statement of "treated as she should be" implies acceptance of the protocol and the whole situation as something that's acceptable instead of treating it as an example of a horrifically broken system that must be changed, and circumvented until it's changed.
Passing that protocol was negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives, but that's not the main case here.
But following that protocol was also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. The people on site should have acknowledged that this protocol is broken and should be ignored, and that people like her should be tested even if someone else has made a mistake.
And also endorsing following that protocol is also negligent, reckless and harmful to human lives. If some institution denies testing like this, then it's immoral to accept their actions as valid and reasonable and acceptable. It's a moral imperative to point this out, and shame them for following the (broken) system instead of doing the right thing, and remind them that "just following the orders" is not an excuse if the orders are immoral; that blindly following broken protocols is simply not okay in an epidemic emergency.
A few days delay in spreading the outbreak make a large difference in the total number of deaths. I recall an epidemiologic paper on the Wuhan case which modeled various containment scenarios, and the conclusion was that enforcing Wuhan lockdown 10 days (if I recall correctly) earlier would have reduced the number of cases and deaths threefold, and delaying Wuhan lockdown by two weeks would have increased the number of cases and deaths threefold.