6 ms·

If anything sets a bad precedent, citizens starting testing themselves and each other, what could possibly go wrong (sarcasm)... Should we test for flu, cold a

If anything sets a bad precedent, citizens starting testing themselves and each other, what could possibly go wrong (sarcasm)... Should we test for flu, cold as well? All other diseases? Should you only be allowed to be somewhere if you tested yourself within the last N hours ... etc .. because that is the next step, looking at each other with suspicion. When did you last test yourself? Did you not test yourself? Why not? What are you hiding? What kind of citizen are you? Get back there and start testing yourself. Are you going to test yourself every day? When you sneeze? In the morning, in the evening? Stop living in fear. Nothing will happen to you.

patmorgan23 7y ago
This is FUD. Comprehensive testing and isolation is the only thing that can contain a pandemic. There's so little data available every additional point is valuable.
- glofish 7y ago
  testing should not be done Random Joe at home! there is tons of data, it helps no one when unqualified people add to the noise, you think it helps you, but the tragedy that it only makes things worse
  - bobcostas55 7y ago
    There is absolutely not tons of data, the CDC and FDA have been trying to manipulate the infection figures by preventing people from being tested. Have a look at this thread from a former FDA commissioner, which was posted on Feb 2(!) https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1224042220665307137 https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/12240422206653071... It took another month for things to seriously change after that was posted. South Korea, a nation of 50 million people, has tested 150,000. The US figure is hard to track but it's at around 2,000 right now. There are almost certainly thousands of people in the US who are infected but have not been tested.
    - buzzert 7y ago
      Posting a link to twitter is a great way to instantly lose credibility.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - ajross 7y ago
    There is literally almost no data. We are barely testing at all in the US. And even if we were, the goal here isn't good science, it's preventing deaths. People who get tested "random Joe" at home and get a positive result are less likely to infect others.
    - glofish 7y ago
      Someone sitting in their house is testing themselves is not data! You are confusing data with a number that ticks up. Ha, another infected! Look DATA! The potential for misuse, abuse, panic and trouble is far bigger than you imagine. The problem here, with everyone, is that they think that the rest of the population will act like them. Take a test, then if positive but you are not showing any symptoms lay low for a week, avoid contact with others. This is the most common outcome of the disease, 99% of cases nothing will happen. You don't need to do anything at all, clears up on its own. For each one in a hospital, hundreds did not need care. But no, that's not what would happen at all if the population started self-testing itself. Everyone positive, yet in no need of medical care will rush the emergency, severely impacting health care providers - that will kill more people than COVID itself. The upheaval this self-testing can cause far exceeds whatever marginal benefits it would produce. The first rule of medicine: First, do no harm!
      - eveningcoffee 7y ago
        Counter argument. Tests are probably not handed out without instructions about the protocol to follow (do not go to emergency, you will be sent back when you do not have severe symptoms etc). If these are not then you pointed out a clear improvement possibility, problem solved. I think the massive usage of self tests is a very economical way to contain the outbreak. No, I do not mean the price of the test, I mean the macro economics. Lock downs may be avoided because only infected people must be isolated but the rest can continue to function efficiently. Even if the containment is not possible by this, it may help to slow down the spread to the level where the health care system could handle severe cases (it is going to be very difficult when spread grows out of control - https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/ff8hns/testimony_of_a_surgeon_working_in_bergamo_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/ff8hns/testimony_... ). I think that not doing massive testing that is going to be only possible by self testing will create much larger harm. Edit: the method provided by Bill Gates is not a self test. It is just a way to collect samples. The test will be still done in the lab.
legionof7 7y ago
If I could test myself continuously, I would. Why would you not?
- glofish 7y ago
  because it never works like that, never that simple, there are always bigger costs in the end this will be used against you and others next thing you know you are not allowed on a bus if you haven't tested yourself today
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - wbronitsky 7y ago
    I think that the argument “it never works like that” should be coupled with at least one data point. I don’t think it’s helpful to dismiss other commenters based upon simply your opinion, and not a set of facts we can all inspect together.
    - glofish 7y ago
      "never works like that" was meant to reflect that naive, knee jerk solutions never account for all the complexities of the problem and do more harm than good. distributing COVID tests to the population is a ridiculous idea that does not do anything but create more panic and trouble. The problem that needs a solution has nothing to do with whether Random Jane can or cannot (in the privacy of their home) determine if they are infected. For what is worth, there are people out there, not even few, that would knowingly seek to infect others especially if they themselves suffer almost no effects from the disease. They would do it just for the "lulz". Have you considered that? Being infected, knowing it and suffering no ill effects is an evil superpower.
      - wbronitsky 7y ago
        there are still no facts and no sources in your argument. I cannot and will not engage in this sort of meaningless argumentation without data. Please stop
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
You're not thinking clearly here. Home disease tests in the form of a thermometer are very common; the "next steps" you describe simply don't happen outside of pandemic situations, even though there's no technological or legal reason they couldn't.
- glofish 7y ago
  the analogy is not even remotely valid taking someone's temperature is a well-known concept with long tradition - fever is not something that started occurring in the last two weeks. if people would did not know what fever meant and how they should act based on a reading on a thermometer what benefits would distributing thermometers have?

patmorgan23 7y ago

This is FUD. Comprehensive testing and isolation is the only thing that can contain a pandemic. There's so little data available every additional point is valuable.

glofish 7y ago
testing should not be done Random Joe at home! there is tons of data, it helps no one when unqualified people add to the noise, you think it helps you, but the tragedy that it only makes things worse
- bobcostas55 7y ago
  There is absolutely not tons of data, the CDC and FDA have been trying to manipulate the infection figures by preventing people from being tested. Have a look at this thread from a former FDA commissioner, which was posted on Feb 2(!) https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/1224042220665307137 https://twitter.com/ScottGottliebMD/status/12240422206653071... It took another month for things to seriously change after that was posted. South Korea, a nation of 50 million people, has tested 150,000. The US figure is hard to track but it's at around 2,000 right now. There are almost certainly thousands of people in the US who are infected but have not been tested.
  - buzzert 7y ago
    Posting a link to twitter is a great way to instantly lose credibility.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ajross 7y ago
  There is literally almost no data. We are barely testing at all in the US. And even if we were, the goal here isn't good science, it's preventing deaths. People who get tested "random Joe" at home and get a positive result are less likely to infect others.
  - glofish 7y ago
    Someone sitting in their house is testing themselves is not data! You are confusing data with a number that ticks up. Ha, another infected! Look DATA! The potential for misuse, abuse, panic and trouble is far bigger than you imagine. The problem here, with everyone, is that they think that the rest of the population will act like them. Take a test, then if positive but you are not showing any symptoms lay low for a week, avoid contact with others. This is the most common outcome of the disease, 99% of cases nothing will happen. You don't need to do anything at all, clears up on its own. For each one in a hospital, hundreds did not need care. But no, that's not what would happen at all if the population started self-testing itself. Everyone positive, yet in no need of medical care will rush the emergency, severely impacting health care providers - that will kill more people than COVID itself. The upheaval this self-testing can cause far exceeds whatever marginal benefits it would produce. The first rule of medicine: First, do no harm!
    - eveningcoffee 7y ago
      Counter argument. Tests are probably not handed out without instructions about the protocol to follow (do not go to emergency, you will be sent back when you do not have severe symptoms etc). If these are not then you pointed out a clear improvement possibility, problem solved. I think the massive usage of self tests is a very economical way to contain the outbreak. No, I do not mean the price of the test, I mean the macro economics. Lock downs may be avoided because only infected people must be isolated but the rest can continue to function efficiently. Even if the containment is not possible by this, it may help to slow down the spread to the level where the health care system could handle severe cases (it is going to be very difficult when spread grows out of control - https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/ff8hns/testimony_of_a_surgeon_working_in_bergamo_in_the/ https://www.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/ff8hns/testimony_... ). I think that not doing massive testing that is going to be only possible by self testing will create much larger harm. Edit: the method provided by Bill Gates is not a self test. It is just a way to collect samples. The test will be still done in the lab.

legionof7 7y ago

If I could test myself continuously, I would. Why would you not?

glofish 7y ago
because it never works like that, never that simple, there are always bigger costs in the end this will be used against you and others next thing you know you are not allowed on a bus if you haven't tested yourself today
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- wbronitsky 7y ago
  I think that the argument “it never works like that” should be coupled with at least one data point. I don’t think it’s helpful to dismiss other commenters based upon simply your opinion, and not a set of facts we can all inspect together.
  - glofish 7y ago
    "never works like that" was meant to reflect that naive, knee jerk solutions never account for all the complexities of the problem and do more harm than good. distributing COVID tests to the population is a ridiculous idea that does not do anything but create more panic and trouble. The problem that needs a solution has nothing to do with whether Random Jane can or cannot (in the privacy of their home) determine if they are infected. For what is worth, there are people out there, not even few, that would knowingly seek to infect others especially if they themselves suffer almost no effects from the disease. They would do it just for the "lulz". Have you considered that? Being infected, knowing it and suffering no ill effects is an evil superpower.
    - wbronitsky 7y ago
      there are still no facts and no sources in your argument. I cannot and will not engage in this sort of meaningless argumentation without data. Please stop

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

You're not thinking clearly here. Home disease tests in the form of a thermometer are very common; the "next steps" you describe simply don't happen outside of pandemic situations, even though there's no technological or legal reason they couldn't.

glofish 7y ago
the analogy is not even remotely valid taking someone's temperature is a well-known concept with long tradition - fever is not something that started occurring in the last two weeks. if people would did not know what fever meant and how they should act based on a reading on a thermometer what benefits would distributing thermometers have?