3 ms·

We have to wait for evidence (numbers) before declaring it a pandemic. Cooler heads must prevail. Plus, Roche would not have been able to obtain a 24 hour appro

• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• dkarl 7y ago
  You mentioned the lack of a declared pandemic in response to a statement that the need for tests was clear in January. Now you mention the need for "numbers" (i.e., positive tests) in the same context. I think you're getting it backwards. A widely available test was essential for establishing that it was a pandemic. We all need to keep cool heads, but we don't need to make excuses or pretend that the lack of tests in the U.S. was the result of prudence and good sense. We could have responded faster. Our national policy isn't dictated by the WHO. It was a failure. If waiting for the WHO to declare a pandemic held back our response, we shouldn't have waited. If we needed a national emergency declared earlier in order to respond correctly, we should have declared it.