3 ms·

From a public health perspective ... this could be a brilliant solution.

by dependsontheq 7y ago

mnd999 7y ago
Until they all decide that they’re immune and don’t need to worry about it anymore.
- fortran77 7y ago
  Exactly. I think many people, upon learning they're positive by asymptomatic would (maybe) wait a week to make sure they don't feel ill, and then go out into the world, potentially spreading the virus with abandon because they're among the group that doesn't get ill from it.
lozenge 7y ago
Until Fox News or the governor of West Virginia blows the illusion away.
- ramblerman 7y ago
  Huh, I'm lost in this thread. So, We lie to people and tell em they are infected. And then we are angry that FOX or the governor of WV are going to expose our scam? What did I miss...
  - beojan 7y ago
    You could tell them the test came back positive. That's not really a lie.
dguest 7y ago
You should account for ignorance in public health policy, but you shouldn't rely on it. Having more false positives than true positives only works if the people taking the test either don't understand statistics or don't know the test accuracy. I for one would probably ignore a positive result if I thought my chances of true positive were 0.001 and my chances of a false positive were 0.5.
gpderetta 7y ago
That's a great way to lose any remaining confidence the population might have on the establishment. It is also probably unethical so I doubt any doctor would go with it.
- mistermann 7y ago
  It's a perfectly valid concern, but I don't think it needs to turn out the way your fear. How about we try this: when reporting "facts", how about we try noting that there is uncertainty involved? I know the average Joe and Jane public aren't intellectuals, and it is often how stupid people can be, but on the other hand I think it is also fair to say that we underestimate people. I think we should at least consider trying this (noting uncertainty in reporting) - it's times like this where we need more ideas and more thinking, not less.

From a public health perspective ... this could be a brilliant solution.

mnd999 7y ago

Until they all decide that they’re immune and don’t need to worry about it anymore.

fortran77 7y ago
Exactly. I think many people, upon learning they're positive by asymptomatic would (maybe) wait a week to make sure they don't feel ill, and then go out into the world, potentially spreading the virus with abandon because they're among the group that doesn't get ill from it.

lozenge 7y ago

Until Fox News or the governor of West Virginia blows the illusion away.

ramblerman 7y ago
Huh, I'm lost in this thread. So, We lie to people and tell em they are infected. And then we are angry that FOX or the governor of WV are going to expose our scam? What did I miss...
- beojan 7y ago
  You could tell them the test came back positive. That's not really a lie.

dguest 7y ago

You should account for ignorance in public health policy, but you shouldn't rely on it. Having more false positives than true positives only works if the people taking the test either don't understand statistics or don't know the test accuracy. I for one would probably ignore a positive result if I thought my chances of true positive were 0.001 and my chances of a false positive were 0.5.

gpderetta 7y ago

That's a great way to lose any remaining confidence the population might have on the establishment. It is also probably unethical so I doubt any doctor would go with it.

mistermann 7y ago
It's a perfectly valid concern, but I don't think it needs to turn out the way your fear. How about we try this: when reporting "facts", how about we try noting that there is uncertainty involved? I know the average Joe and Jane public aren't intellectuals, and it is often how stupid people can be, but on the other hand I think it is also fair to say that we underestimate people. I think we should at least consider trying this (noting uncertainty in reporting) - it's times like this where we need more ideas and more thinking, not less.