4 ms·

Why would you want to test "everyone"? For epidemiological purposes, you only need a statistically valid sample, which is much smaller than "everyone". For me

by klipt 7y ago

Why would you want to test "everyone"? For epidemiological purposes, you only need a statistically valid sample, which is much smaller than "everyone". For medical purposes, you only need to test people who are sick, which is hopefully also much smaller than "everyone".

ketamine__ 7y ago
Asymptomatic carriers of the virus can self-isolate. Contact tracing can be done at that point as well.
poidos 7y ago
Aren’t asymptomatic carriers a big part of the problem? That is, it seems like testing everyone (instead of just testing folks that are sick) enables us to find asymptomatic carriers and isolate them much sooner than (if) they start showing symptoms.
maxerickson 7y ago
The idea is that testing everyone who has a fair chance of being infections makes suppression more effective. If the goal is to just have everyone get it, but over a longer period of time, it doesn't matter a lot. But that's a shitty goal.
- didericis 7y ago
  This level of isolation can’t be sustained for the year or so it’s going to take until a vaccine is created. Testing for active infections will help identify people who should self isolate to slow the spread, which is good, but we also should be determining who has antibodies and is able to end self isolation. We need to release some of the social pressure building up and allow people who are ok to go out again to do so.
BurningFrog 7y ago
You absolutely need to get infected people without symptoms out of infecting people! They don't "get sick", so testing is the only way. That seems to be the main way this is spreading.
alistairSH 7y ago
For medical purposes, you don't even need to test the sick. We don't have treatments available at this time, so the course of treatment doesn't current vary. IE, if you have COVID-like symptoms and are moved to the ICU, the course of treatment is the same with or without a positive test. I've seen it argued that instead of testing the sick (as we currently do), we should be testing individuals who are "high touch" and likely to infect others (even lacking symptoms). Medical staff, first responders. Pharmacy and grocery employees. Bus drivers. Etc. I don't know enough to argue this is a better approach.
- smacktoward 7y ago
  Since an infected person can be contagious for days before showing any symptoms, it'd be ideal if we could regularly test everybody, regardless of whether or not they are currently symptomatic. That way we could get them isolated early, which would prevent them from infecting X other people before they even realize they're sick, as well as cutting down on the number of contacts they've had that would need to be traced.
lbeltrame 7y ago
People with antibodies (assuming the test works and is specific enough) may have cleared the infection already and they may enjoy (temporary?) immunity enough for them to resume a part of their activities in a lockdown. The other goal, as others have said, is to isolate, and contact trace the infected. And I add, early detection might also help with treatment, since the scant evidence so far suggests that pharmacological interventions that target the virus might be more effective early on during the infection.

by klipt 7y ago

ketamine__ 7y ago

Asymptomatic carriers of the virus can self-isolate. Contact tracing can be done at that point as well.

poidos 7y ago

Aren’t asymptomatic carriers a big part of the problem? That is, it seems like testing everyone (instead of just testing folks that are sick) enables us to find asymptomatic carriers and isolate them much sooner than (if) they start showing symptoms.

maxerickson 7y ago

The idea is that testing everyone who has a fair chance of being infections makes suppression more effective. If the goal is to just have everyone get it, but over a longer period of time, it doesn't matter a lot. But that's a shitty goal.

didericis 7y ago
This level of isolation can’t be sustained for the year or so it’s going to take until a vaccine is created. Testing for active infections will help identify people who should self isolate to slow the spread, which is good, but we also should be determining who has antibodies and is able to end self isolation. We need to release some of the social pressure building up and allow people who are ok to go out again to do so.

BurningFrog 7y ago

You absolutely need to get infected people without symptoms out of infecting people! They don't "get sick", so testing is the only way. That seems to be the main way this is spreading.

alistairSH 7y ago

For medical purposes, you don't even need to test the sick. We don't have treatments available at this time, so the course of treatment doesn't current vary. IE, if you have COVID-like symptoms and are moved to the ICU, the course of treatment is the same with or without a positive test. I've seen it argued that instead of testing the sick (as we currently do), we should be testing individuals who are "high touch" and likely to infect others (even lacking symptoms). Medical staff, first responders. Pharmacy and grocery employees. Bus drivers. Etc. I don't know enough to argue this is a better approach.

smacktoward 7y ago
Since an infected person can be contagious for days before showing any symptoms, it'd be ideal if we could regularly test everybody, regardless of whether or not they are currently symptomatic. That way we could get them isolated early, which would prevent them from infecting X other people before they even realize they're sick, as well as cutting down on the number of contacts they've had that would need to be traced.

lbeltrame 7y ago

People with antibodies (assuming the test works and is specific enough) may have cleared the infection already and they may enjoy (temporary?) immunity enough for them to resume a part of their activities in a lockdown. The other goal, as others have said, is to isolate, and contact trace the infected. And I add, early detection might also help with treatment, since the scant evidence so far suggests that pharmacological interventions that target the virus might be more effective early on during the infection.