4 ms·

Maybe, just maybe you shouldn't look at new cases as your measurement when you are constantly ramping up testing. If you test more people of course you will fin

by cdash 6y ago

Maybe, just maybe you shouldn't look at new cases as your measurement when you are constantly ramping up testing. If you test more people of course you will find more people with the virus. You should be looking at hospitalizations and those numbers are pretty much down across the board.

CydeWeys 6y ago
An alternative way to look at this is that you shouldn't remotely consider reopening if you don't even have enough testing capacity available to identify nearly every case. You can't control outbreaks if you don't have the data needed for contact tracing.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  Why is that? I don't see the need for testing when we already know that folks under 60 are usually fine if they take the standard precautions, and everyone over 60 or in a risk group should remain isolated. The testing is nice to have, but shouldn't really alter people's behavior.
- walterbell 6y ago
  Testing is a point-in-time measurement. Means little if someone with a negative test can get infected an hour later. We should instead be teaching people to recognize early symptoms so they can immediately isolate during the time-bounded phase of virus shedding. Testing is sanitation theater with the side effect of creating a surveillance society.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    It's pretty clear that a positive test is the early symptom for a large percentage of people. It's also not the interval immediately after infection takes place (your hour later) that matters, it's the period starting a few days later. Get them out of circulation before they have a chance to spread the virus and we can slow it down further than we have till now, even with more activity taking place.
Scipio_Afri 6y ago
If you look at % positive it accounts for increases in testing ability. So are you just testing more, or are you actually finding an increase in cases in your sample of the total population. That is what they're looking at to get a true determination of if the infection rate is increasing, decreasing or flat.

by cdash 6y ago

CydeWeys 6y ago

An alternative way to look at this is that you shouldn't remotely consider reopening if you don't even have enough testing capacity available to identify nearly every case. You can't control outbreaks if you don't have the data needed for contact tracing.

koheripbal 6y ago
Why is that? I don't see the need for testing when we already know that folks under 60 are usually fine if they take the standard precautions, and everyone over 60 or in a risk group should remain isolated. The testing is nice to have, but shouldn't really alter people's behavior.
walterbell 6y ago
Testing is a point-in-time measurement. Means little if someone with a negative test can get infected an hour later. We should instead be teaching people to recognize early symptoms so they can immediately isolate during the time-bounded phase of virus shedding. Testing is sanitation theater with the side effect of creating a surveillance society.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  It's pretty clear that a positive test is the early symptom for a large percentage of people. It's also not the interval immediately after infection takes place (your hour later) that matters, it's the period starting a few days later. Get them out of circulation before they have a chance to spread the virus and we can slow it down further than we have till now, even with more activity taking place.

Scipio_Afri 6y ago

If you look at % positive it accounts for increases in testing ability. So are you just testing more, or are you actually finding an increase in cases in your sample of the total population. That is what they're looking at to get a true determination of if the infection rate is increasing, decreasing or flat.