6 ms·

I gathered the same thing. Basically the gist is, if we can develop a cheap, fast, and effective test for COVID-19 then we can test everywhere and re-open every

I gathered the same thing. Basically the gist is, if we can develop a cheap, fast, and effective test for COVID-19 then we can test everywhere and re-open everything.

mikepurvis 6y ago
Hasn't that always been everyone's argument? That's the crux of Pueyo's "dance" [1], that as long as you've contained the initial outbreak, you can pretty much go back to normal if you track movement and have the capacity to test everyone who comes in contact with an infected person. [1]: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-learning-how-to-dance-b8420170203e https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-learning-how-to-d...
- obeattie 6y ago
  That post, which was very popular, immediately came to my mind too. It also feels like the logical next step to the very widespread testing found in countries like South Korea.
- joe_the_user 6y ago
  This has been one major argument. The others have been: "flatten the curve - just extend the time until everyone gets it" (obvious problem, exponential growth can't work that way), "shelter in place 'till a vaccine appears" (not very practical) and "it's really not that bad, there are so many asymptomatic carriers that in the end it's not actually worse than the flu after all or at least there's nothing we can do." (not that plausible, not appealing, non-fatal cases still much worse than the flu). I think this is the best position, however but it still needs to be argued for since it's not the only position. Edit: Also, it looks like the US has plateaued at this point but in a situation with a fairly dysfunctional testing arrangement. It is going to be hard to argue for people to sit tight until tests are in place so I'm not terribly optimistic.
  - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
    ""flatten the curve - just extend the time until everyone gets it" (obvious problem, exponential growth can't work that way)" Huh? One goal is to flatten the curve so that we don't have exponential growth. Another is to flatten the curve so much that, even if might still be exponential growth, the growth is slow enough for our health care systems to absorb the peak.
    - joe_the_user 6y ago
      One goal is to flatten the curve so that we don't have exponential growth The aim of mitigating measures is reducing the growth rate of the disease. But the mechanism of the disease is that you generally have a basic situation where X people infect at time t results R*X people at time t+1. That's fundamentally exponential process (even though you can extra factors, the process doesn't change 'till you get close to having infected everyone). If we can make R small enough, this become exponential decay, a good thing but still an exponential process. But when you do exponential growth. you have a doubling and on the last double, you get more cases than all the cases combines. So the peak is just MUCH higher than the rest of the curve and you can "flatten" a lot and still wind-up overwhelmed in the end if the growth process continues.
      - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
        Sure. Yes. Of course you can flatten a lot and still wind up overwhelmed. Or, you can flatten enough that you don't.
  - anon9001 6y ago
    > "flatten the curve - just extend the time until everyone gets it" (obvious problem, exponential growth can't work that way) Just to nitpick a little here, it's more like "flatten the curve - stretch the time while everyone gets it, so we don't overwhelm hospitals". Even with exponential growth, you would rather deal with it over a longer period than have a massive spike where all services are overwhelmed.
taneq 6y ago
Yeah but maybe we shouldn't. We have the technology to compartmentalise our society WAY more than it currently is, at relatively little cost. COVID-19 is a fantastic dress rehearsal for the next disease, which will be far scarier and will come relatively soon. Humanity is a monoculture and like all such, is very vulnerable to pathogens. We need to start building social distancing into our culture the same way we built protection for sex into our culture.
- behnamoh 6y ago
  Ever since 2000, we've have a pandemic once every decade. The next one will occur soon, but it's not certain whether it'll be as scary as COVID-19. > We need to start building social distancing into our culture the same way we built protection for sex into our culture. While I agree with the general gist of your comment, I should emphasize that what we need is physical-distancing, not social. Humans are social beings at core, and depriving them of social interactions is as deadly as the virus itself. What we should be practicing more than ever before is washing our hands, minding our coughs, and in general, being responsible to the society. The individualistic lifestyle - which is pretty much dominant in the West - shouldn't stop us from caring about our community as a whole and our duties towards other people. Technology can only help us get so far; the rest depends on how much we - as responsible social beings - take care of ourselves and each other.
  - taneq 6y ago
    > I should emphasize that what we need is physical-distancing, not social. Good distinction. We should be focusing more on hygiene while finding ways to connect remotely with the people who are important to us.
    - johncalvinyoung 6y ago
      > while finding ways to connect remotely with the people who are important to us Good stop-gap, but not remotely viable long-term. Humans aren't made for isolation, even if video calls help take the edge off soon. FaceTime and Zoom have a significant cognitive load, too. As long as we're talking about how society should adapt to this sort of risk, we can't just go to living in individual hermetic pods with internet connections. The mental health cost will be monstrous.
kebman 6y ago
Is this what you're looking for? Scientists at NTNU St. Olav's Hospital has made a test that can check 150,000 patients per week for Corona infection [1]. (Yes, it's the same uni that used the USA as an example in warning students abroad against poorly developed health systems lol.) Already testing is a lot more frequent in Norway because of it, and they're cautiously re-opening some businesses and services, the first of which are kindergartens and hair dressers. The Norwegian health authorities also published an app that can be voluntarily downloaded, that tracks and warns about infected, while also collecting research data for future use. [2] The app has garnered some criticism for leaking user data, and for discharging the battery too quickly. The retort is that it's of course voluntary and anonymous, and that it's actually tracking less data than Facebook or Google. [1]: https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2020/04/from-thousands-of-tiny-magnetic-balls-to-150000-covid-19-tests-per-week/ https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2020/04/from-thousands-of-t... [2]: Norwegian language source: https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2020/ny-app-fra-folkehelseinstituttet/ https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2020/ny-app-fra-folkehelseinstitu...
- vinay427 6y ago
  The relevant quote actually concerned the collective infrastructure in the US, including health insurance. The actual quality of care in the US is great, particarly for specialty cases... for the few that can comfortably pay for it. Relevant part of their tweet: "This applies if you are staying in a country with poorly developed health services and infrastructure and/or collective infrastructure, for example the USA. The same applies if you do not have health insurance." As well as a message, now apparently removed but archived by others, on their website: "This also applies for countries with poorly developed collective infrastructure, for example the USA, where it can be difficult to get transport to the airport if you don’t have a car. The same applies if you don’t have health insurance."

I gathered the same thing. Basically the gist is, if we can develop a cheap, fast, and effective test for COVID-19 then we can test everywhere and re-open everything.

mikepurvis 6y ago

Hasn't that always been everyone's argument? That's the crux of Pueyo's "dance" [1], that as long as you've contained the initial outbreak, you can pretty much go back to normal if you track movement and have the capacity to test everyone who comes in contact with an infected person. [1]: https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-learning-how-to-dance-b8420170203e https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-learning-how-to-d...

obeattie 6y ago
That post, which was very popular, immediately came to my mind too. It also feels like the logical next step to the very widespread testing found in countries like South Korea.
joe_the_user 6y ago
This has been one major argument. The others have been: "flatten the curve - just extend the time until everyone gets it" (obvious problem, exponential growth can't work that way), "shelter in place 'till a vaccine appears" (not very practical) and "it's really not that bad, there are so many asymptomatic carriers that in the end it's not actually worse than the flu after all or at least there's nothing we can do." (not that plausible, not appealing, non-fatal cases still much worse than the flu). I think this is the best position, however but it still needs to be argued for since it's not the only position. Edit: Also, it looks like the US has plateaued at this point but in a situation with a fairly dysfunctional testing arrangement. It is going to be hard to argue for people to sit tight until tests are in place so I'm not terribly optimistic.
- hcknwscommenter 6y ago
  ""flatten the curve - just extend the time until everyone gets it" (obvious problem, exponential growth can't work that way)" Huh? One goal is to flatten the curve so that we don't have exponential growth. Another is to flatten the curve so much that, even if might still be exponential growth, the growth is slow enough for our health care systems to absorb the peak.
  - joe_the_user 6y ago
    One goal is to flatten the curve so that we don't have exponential growth The aim of mitigating measures is reducing the growth rate of the disease. But the mechanism of the disease is that you generally have a basic situation where X people infect at time t results R*X people at time t+1. That's fundamentally exponential process (even though you can extra factors, the process doesn't change 'till you get close to having infected everyone). If we can make R small enough, this become exponential decay, a good thing but still an exponential process. But when you do exponential growth. you have a doubling and on the last double, you get more cases than all the cases combines. So the peak is just MUCH higher than the rest of the curve and you can "flatten" a lot and still wind-up overwhelmed in the end if the growth process continues.
    - hcknwscommenter 6y ago
      Sure. Yes. Of course you can flatten a lot and still wind up overwhelmed. Or, you can flatten enough that you don't.
- anon9001 6y ago
  > "flatten the curve - just extend the time until everyone gets it" (obvious problem, exponential growth can't work that way) Just to nitpick a little here, it's more like "flatten the curve - stretch the time while everyone gets it, so we don't overwhelm hospitals". Even with exponential growth, you would rather deal with it over a longer period than have a massive spike where all services are overwhelmed.

taneq 6y ago

Yeah but maybe we shouldn't. We have the technology to compartmentalise our society WAY more than it currently is, at relatively little cost. COVID-19 is a fantastic dress rehearsal for the next disease, which will be far scarier and will come relatively soon. Humanity is a monoculture and like all such, is very vulnerable to pathogens. We need to start building social distancing into our culture the same way we built protection for sex into our culture.

behnamoh 6y ago
Ever since 2000, we've have a pandemic once every decade. The next one will occur soon, but it's not certain whether it'll be as scary as COVID-19. > We need to start building social distancing into our culture the same way we built protection for sex into our culture. While I agree with the general gist of your comment, I should emphasize that what we need is physical-distancing, not social. Humans are social beings at core, and depriving them of social interactions is as deadly as the virus itself. What we should be practicing more than ever before is washing our hands, minding our coughs, and in general, being responsible to the society. The individualistic lifestyle - which is pretty much dominant in the West - shouldn't stop us from caring about our community as a whole and our duties towards other people. Technology can only help us get so far; the rest depends on how much we - as responsible social beings - take care of ourselves and each other.
- taneq 6y ago
  > I should emphasize that what we need is physical-distancing, not social. Good distinction. We should be focusing more on hygiene while finding ways to connect remotely with the people who are important to us.
  - johncalvinyoung 6y ago
    > while finding ways to connect remotely with the people who are important to us Good stop-gap, but not remotely viable long-term. Humans aren't made for isolation, even if video calls help take the edge off soon. FaceTime and Zoom have a significant cognitive load, too. As long as we're talking about how society should adapt to this sort of risk, we can't just go to living in individual hermetic pods with internet connections. The mental health cost will be monstrous.

kebman 6y ago

Is this what you're looking for? Scientists at NTNU St. Olav's Hospital has made a test that can check 150,000 patients per week for Corona infection [1]. (Yes, it's the same uni that used the USA as an example in warning students abroad against poorly developed health systems lol.) Already testing is a lot more frequent in Norway because of it, and they're cautiously re-opening some businesses and services, the first of which are kindergartens and hair dressers. The Norwegian health authorities also published an app that can be voluntarily downloaded, that tracks and warns about infected, while also collecting research data for future use. [2] The app has garnered some criticism for leaking user data, and for discharging the battery too quickly. The retort is that it's of course voluntary and anonymous, and that it's actually tracking less data than Facebook or Google. [1]: https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2020/04/from-thousands-of-tiny-magnetic-balls-to-150000-covid-19-tests-per-week/ https://norwegianscitechnews.com/2020/04/from-thousands-of-t... [2]: Norwegian language source: https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2020/ny-app-fra-folkehelseinstituttet/ https://www.fhi.no/nyheter/2020/ny-app-fra-folkehelseinstitu...

vinay427 6y ago
The relevant quote actually concerned the collective infrastructure in the US, including health insurance. The actual quality of care in the US is great, particarly for specialty cases... for the few that can comfortably pay for it. Relevant part of their tweet: "This applies if you are staying in a country with poorly developed health services and infrastructure and/or collective infrastructure, for example the USA. The same applies if you do not have health insurance." As well as a message, now apparently removed but archived by others, on their website: "This also applies for countries with poorly developed collective infrastructure, for example the USA, where it can be difficult to get transport to the airport if you don’t have a car. The same applies if you don’t have health insurance."