3 ms·
> The solution is aggressive, continuous testing so that people can feel safe going back out. I disagree, and strongly. This would be a knee-jerk, hyberbolic,
by donw 7y ago
> The solution is aggressive, continuous testing so that people can feel safe going back out.
I disagree, and strongly.
This would be a knee-jerk, hyberbolic, and woefully ineffective over-response.
Typical for the times.
The only thing this might achieve is creating an even greater climate of fear and loathing.
There will be false positives. And false negatives.
There are with every medical test.
Back-of-the-envelope calculation: Assuming we "test everybody", and assuming both a 5% rate for both false positives and false negatives -- which is better than we currently do with influenza testing![1] -- we would needlessly quarantine 12.5 million people, and fail to quarantine an equal number of infected carriers.
Not to mention, the data about COVID-19 is all over the map. We still know very, very little about this disease. Understanding it well enough to calculate the appropriate response will take time.
Testing is part of the solution, yes. But the economic and social impact of "test everybody, every day" would be catastrophic.
Until then, in the short term, there are things we can, and should, be doing, as individuals:
(1) Limit your physical contact with others.
(1a) Especially at-risk individuals. The elderly, young children, etc.
(2) Support your local businesses through delivery, online ordering, and gift certificates.
(3) DON'T HOARD SUPPLIES! You do not need a decade's worth of toilet paper. Three months' worth is fine.
(4) Related to the above, maybe use this as an opportunity to live a bit more sustainably.
I'm down to four sheets per wipe -- certainly fascinating, relevant, and not at all disgusting to all of our readers -- which means that a single CostCo-sized pack of TP might keep my household going for well over six months.
On that note, I'm learning to garden. Let's see if I can manage to actually grow a fucking potato this year, all I got last year was a big leafy plant with zero tubers.
A discussion on government policy in response to this is a big ball of... things that require four sheets of Kirkland Signature, so I'm so not going there.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/rapidlab.htm https://www.cdc.gov/flu/professionals/diagnosis/rapidlab.htm
- kalleboo 7y ago> we would needlessly quarantine 12.5 million people As opposed to needlessly quarantining 300 million people?
- donw 7y agoThere is a gross difference between "quarantine" and "limit your physical contact, especially with the young and old, while we sort this out".
- hyperion2010 7y agoYour logic is off. In the absence of data there is more fear because you have no idea who might possibly be sick. Once you start testing you can bring epidemiological tools online and alert people to possible exposures. If you don't do that the only sure thing is to quarantine everyone because you have no data, that will tank the economy for sure.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- donw 7y ago> Your logic is off. In the absence of data there is more fear because you have no idea who might possibly be sick. There is a massive gap between "test everybody!" and "test nobody!" We have a finite capacity to test. Tests have accuracy limitations. We can work within both of those limits to mitigate risk as much as possible. Drastic times require effective measures.
- zaroth 7y ago> ...we would needlessly quarantine 12.5 million people, and fail to quarantine an equal number of infected carriers. Well, the failure the quarantine would be the false negative rate times the infection prevalence. A significantly smaller number than the false quarantine rate, until the whole gadonkun no longer matters.
- donw 7y agoVery true. Mine was a quick back-of-the-envelope calculation based on a highly charitable scenario.
- koheripbal 7y agoThe alternative is total economic destruction.