Why not triaging confirmed bugs instead of new ones?

[Alberto Salvia Novella]

Gunnar Hjalmarsson:
> Considering that a bug gets "confirmed" as soon as somebody besides the
> bug reporter states that it affects him/her, I think that confirmed bugs
> should always be included when looking for untouched bugs.

But isn't confirming bugs a task rather related with the tester role 
than with the triager one?

Why shall bug triagers be looking at new bugs being most of them not 
triageable without getting confirmation first, and specially having in 
place a role specially intended for confirming?

Moreover, what is the point of confirming bug reports one by one?

If the bug is somehow relevant, wouldn't it be happening to at least two 
people in the world while testing the software? Then why not spending 
that time rather in finding bugs than in reading tons of invalid reports?

Regards.