3 ms·
But ubiquitous testing doesn’t prevent people from getting sick, and presumably we do not plan to have all these constraints ad vitam. So implicitly it means th
by cm2187 7y ago
But ubiquitous testing doesn’t prevent people from getting sick, and presumably we do not plan to have all these constraints ad vitam. So implicitly it means they are either banking on a vaccine in the short term or this virus going away by itself. These are strong assumptions, we are told by scientists in the UK that a safe and efficient vaccine may or may not be found. [1]
[1] https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dont-bank-on-a-coronavirus-vaccine-says-sir-patrick-vallance-rzs2pthcj https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/dont-bank-on-a-coronaviru...
- chris_va 7y agoUbiquitous testing would be sufficient to stop the epidemic.
- glofish 7y agoI don't think that is realistic to expect unless testing would be as simple as blowing into a sensor. why not apply this to every disease then? We could then stop every transmissible disease once and for all. you know what the real solution is? What mother nature already gives you, your immune system. The key is finding out how to help the body avoid severe reactions. That is the path of success, finding out how to keep people's own bodies over-reacting, then everyone could deal with it just fine.
- chris_va 7y agoSuch a thing is feasible for most infectious diseases with sufficient resources. You'd be surprised by how little funding virology research gets.
- cm2187 7y agoYou mean ubiquitous testing forever? It only took one guy in China to infect tens of millions of people. This virus is bound to come back again and again. I am not sure this is a long term solution. And it is possible that this virus goes away by itself (ie it won’t be reimported). Apparently some viruses do. But if it is the assumption it should be stated.