3 ms·

I'm very tempted to argue that in any successful plan, a pretty small minority of the population would be symptomatic at any given time. And the above article h

I'm very tempted to argue that in any successful plan, a pretty small minority of the population would be symptomatic at any given time. And the above article has me convinced we should be testing asymptomatic people on a very wide scale in order to get the economy going again. (Enough to test most of the population regularly, like every two weeks.) Together, those two things tell me we should have such a large testing capacity that testing symptomatic people isn't a stretch. (Of course, we might need more reliable tests if their medical situation is shaky, which is the different category of testing capacity.)

bhickey 7y ago
> we should have such a large testing capacity that testing symptomatic people isn't a stretch. We should, but we don't. Group testing dramatically expands the number of people we can test. However group testing collapses at high prevalence. Since we expect people with fever and cough to be more likely COVID+ than the general population prevalence when we can only run a limited number of cases we'll inevitably miss more positives by testing people with symptoms.