I'm not sure I understand the extreme focus on testing.
3blue1brown on YouTube created a simple model that suggests that testing and quarantine of positive cases is the most effective way to slow the spread (within the simplified model). Testing should allow us to isolate just the infected, and ease off the restrictions on others.
With statistically valid random testing, even detecting clusters / communities (as opposed to individuals) and clearing same would be conducive to reopening the economy.
Unfortunately, the path to doing so "I'm going to force you to get tested, despite you having no symptoms" is political anathema.
No, no, there’s never going to be enough testing to test asymptomatic cases — Thats everybody.
And a test doesn’t tell you you aren’t going to be positive tomorrow. It just tells you you weren’t positive 48 hours ago!
Fauci explained all this live at the press conference. I wish people would listen. With AIDS it’s different. You can get tested, be negative, take no at-risk behaviors, and a year later that negative test is still relevant. With COVID by the time you have a negative test result back it’s no longer even relevant. Only positive tests are relevant.
The fact is that there’s no point in testing people to demonstrate that they are negative. And there will never be enough testing to test every asymptomatic person, and a significant proportion of spread is from asymptomatic carriers. Those three incontrovertible facts lead to some very basic and sobering conclusions.
So this fear of people being forced to show a negative test assumes we’ve somehow found our way into an anti-science twilight zone kabuki theater to begin with. Which frankly wouldn’t be far off from where we are already, but can we please at least acknowledge it’s based on fear and hysteria and not any kind of science?
> With COVID by the time you have a negative test result back it’s no longer even relevant.
A family friend died on Friday. His heart went out on him. Big guy on his 60's. He got tested for COVID-19 before he died at the hospital. He and his now widow had some sinus congestion. She couldn't enter to he hospital to be with him when he died. A few days later, his widow got the negative result for her husband. She is alone, scared, dealing with this loss. can't see her kids or grandkids. She can sleep a little better at night knowing that death is not knocking at her doorstep.
Relevant? From a human perspective it is most definitely relevant. Maybe not as much from a epidemiology or number cruncher's perspective but like all expert opinions they are open to interpretation and second opinions.
Statistics are easy to cherry pick for whatever agenda is being pushed behind the scenes.
Just like masks were not relevent at first. They were scarce. Suddenly they are relevant for the public to use. I believe this testing scarcity and related lack of any cohesive national mobilization is the biggest failure of our US government. From a public health perspective this dismissal of negative testing is just a way to manage the demand side for testing.
Public health and epidemiology experts have very different motivations than individuals dealing with loss and fear during this crazy time.
Random testing for surveillance purposes would absolutely require testing asymptomatic people.
Not because you care if they're sick (though that's useful information), but because you care if the community has a change in the Sars-CoV-2 infection rate.
> "I'm going to force you to get tested, despite you having no symptoms" is political anathema
This seems less extreme and more palatable than "I'm going to force you to stay home and lose your job, despite you having no symptoms" which is very nonetheless popular right now.
3blue1brown on YouTube created a simple model that suggests that testing and quarantine of positive cases is the most effective way to slow the spread (within the simplified model). Testing should allow us to isolate just the infected, and ease off the restrictions on others.