2 ms·
> as a measure of lowering healthcare worker exposure and reducing use of limited personal protective equipment supplies. It's not about test availability, but
by sailfast 7y ago
> as a measure of lowering healthcare worker exposure and reducing use of limited personal protective equipment supplies.
It's not about test availability, but rather exposure of healthcare workers and use of PPE. If you're already in the hospital people will be wearing PPE if they can get it.
Now that NY has gotten to this point PPE seems to be the bottleneck.
- madeofpalk 7y agoIt is absolutely insane that we are so limited in this capacity, months after we knew we would need it.
- jariel 7y agoIt is absolutely about test availability. Nations such as S. Korea are doing considerable and widespread testing and are able to protect their healthcare workers. And S. Korea is not on lockdown and they have suppressed their outbreak. Given that we're not going for 'herd immunity' in the short term, the only alternative is widespread testing, forced isolation and excessive testing of those with a recent history of contact of those who turn up positive. This will take coordination, moreover, it will take fairly comprehensive testing. I'm not sure if the USA is geared to do this. Maybe a few states, but not the others, which then creates problems. If those $20 testing kits are available in volume, enough people will able to 'test themselves' and that will serve as a really good '1st pass filter' for the regular medical testing systems.