4 ms·

I would say, testing being the solution is one thing that wasn't pushed in January or even pre C19 that I saw. It wasn't mentioned in "Contagion" for instance.

I would say, testing being the solution is one thing that wasn't pushed in January or even pre C19 that I saw. It wasn't mentioned in "Contagion" for instance. A vaccination or cure was always known as not possible but the media pushed these false hopes. In part I suspect this is the usual medial malpractice of doctors keeping their profession wealthy and keeping everything they can tied up and regulated. I'd be interested to look at HIV and testing in the 80/90s to see whether at home tests were stopped by doctors or technology.

ladberg 6y ago
In "Contagion" almost everyone who got it showed symptoms immediately and died within a few days, so testing wasn't really a solution.
- aaron695 6y ago
  It's a tiny bit of my point. That's not true generally. Perhaps because of this misconception we are missing out on a paradigm shift, testing technology needs more money but first get comfortable with anyone using the test and making mistakes, which includes the real poor, including illiterate people. Because medical has been locked up for so long, researchers and governments aren't looking at people looking after themselves.
lazyasciiart 6y ago
No, a vaccination was not always known as not possible. It still isn't, in fact. And amazing amounts of effort are being spent to make the administration of tests easier. The first tests required trained research technicians. Today tests are still not widespread because they require specialized machinery or other materials. If it were possible to pee on a stick as a self test, everyone would be ecstatic - but it's not, so far. The pandemic planning stuff I've read from before this year seems to suffer from a number of assumptions that were violated by covid, from asymptomatic transmission to the long lead time. E.g in MERS or Ebola or even flu, the infectious but asymptomatic period is more like Contagion. You don't have to worry about infected people wandering around town for a week or two. Most planning mentions the need for having tests, and quickly gathering materials etc, and then moves on to tactics for containment and vaccine development. Where testing is focused on, it's as a way to differentiate between people who have symptoms but are actually infected with a non-panfemic disease, so that resources aren't wasted quarantining them. I haven't yet found a scenario studied with a long lead time and possible low level or asymptomatic presentation as standard.
- pmoriarty 6y ago
  "If it were possible to pee on a stick as a self test, everyone would be ecstatic - but it's not, so far." It is possible. Listen to episode 640 of This Week in Virology[1] for details. [1] - Starting at about 6'20" - https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-640/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-640/
  - lazyasciiart 6y ago
    Audio doesn't work for me, but if you have a written source I would be curious to see it.
    - pmoriarty 6y ago
      No, I don't have a transcript, but you could give this direct link to an mp3 version of the show a try: http://traffic.libsyn.com/twiv/TWiV640.mp3 http://traffic.libsyn.com/twiv/TWiV640.mp3 It should play in any media player.
      - lazyasciiart 6y ago
        Sorry - I didn't mean technically, I meant I can't listen to voices easily.
- TaylorSwift 6y ago
  From the article: Bloomberg: You seem optimistic researchers will succeed in coming up with vaccines. How do you assess the prospects and potential risks? Stohr: The coronavirus is not a particularly difficult virus to handle. Even the conventional vaccines could make a difference, and we have different approaches, vector vaccines, mRNA. That is very promising. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-18/covid-most-of-world-to-face-virus-without-vaccine-expert-says?srnd=premium https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-18/covid-mos...
Fjolsvith 6y ago
> I'd be interested to look at HIV and testing in the 80/90s The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms all the time, regardless of whether they were HIV-positive. Those people were so callous in their regard for human safety!
- klyrs 6y ago
  The same political division occurred back then. The right fights for abstainance-only sex ed; the left fights for harm-reduction such as prophylactics and teaching to the science. But to address the absolutism in your question. If everybody in possession of a penis wore a condom at all times (a) they'd get nasty and possibly gangrenous, [so i'll assume you mean "when the penis is deployed in/on/around a second party"] and (b) it would reduce the birth rate by about 90%.
  - Fjolsvith 6y ago
    > If everybody in possession of a penis wore a condom at all times That would be about as likely as everyone wearing a mask at all times.
    - klyrs 6y ago
      This is a thing you wrote. I agree, very unlikely > The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms all the time
      - Fjolsvith 6y ago
        Fauci saying that masks are not effective protection from coronavirus: https://streamable.com/oml2rf https://streamable.com/oml2rf Its not just me.
- somewhereoutth 6y ago
  The distinction is consent. You would need to get meaningful consent from everyone present when you walked into a store without a mask. EDIT: Actually not quite. To elaborate a little further - it has become understood that it is just and reasonable for the state to have jurisdiction over interpersonal interactions that involve money (though the converse is not necessarily implied) - this is 'the market'. Thus going to the store operates under a different regime than going to a friend's birthday party in their own home. Your example would equate to the state mandating condom usage with prostitution, assuming that was legal in the first place. What you get up to at the store can be regulated by the state - what you get up to in the bedroom (without financial exchange) should not - assuming meaningful consent

ladberg 6y ago

In "Contagion" almost everyone who got it showed symptoms immediately and died within a few days, so testing wasn't really a solution.

aaron695 6y ago
It's a tiny bit of my point. That's not true generally. Perhaps because of this misconception we are missing out on a paradigm shift, testing technology needs more money but first get comfortable with anyone using the test and making mistakes, which includes the real poor, including illiterate people. Because medical has been locked up for so long, researchers and governments aren't looking at people looking after themselves.

lazyasciiart 6y ago

No, a vaccination was not always known as not possible. It still isn't, in fact. And amazing amounts of effort are being spent to make the administration of tests easier. The first tests required trained research technicians. Today tests are still not widespread because they require specialized machinery or other materials. If it were possible to pee on a stick as a self test, everyone would be ecstatic - but it's not, so far. The pandemic planning stuff I've read from before this year seems to suffer from a number of assumptions that were violated by covid, from asymptomatic transmission to the long lead time. E.g in MERS or Ebola or even flu, the infectious but asymptomatic period is more like Contagion. You don't have to worry about infected people wandering around town for a week or two. Most planning mentions the need for having tests, and quickly gathering materials etc, and then moves on to tactics for containment and vaccine development. Where testing is focused on, it's as a way to differentiate between people who have symptoms but are actually infected with a non-panfemic disease, so that resources aren't wasted quarantining them. I haven't yet found a scenario studied with a long lead time and possible low level or asymptomatic presentation as standard.

pmoriarty 6y ago
"If it were possible to pee on a stick as a self test, everyone would be ecstatic - but it's not, so far." It is possible. Listen to episode 640 of This Week in Virology[1] for details. [1] - Starting at about 6'20" - https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-640/ https://www.microbe.tv/twiv/twiv-640/
- lazyasciiart 6y ago
  Audio doesn't work for me, but if you have a written source I would be curious to see it.
  - pmoriarty 6y ago
    No, I don't have a transcript, but you could give this direct link to an mp3 version of the show a try: http://traffic.libsyn.com/twiv/TWiV640.mp3 http://traffic.libsyn.com/twiv/TWiV640.mp3 It should play in any media player.
    - lazyasciiart 6y ago
      Sorry - I didn't mean technically, I meant I can't listen to voices easily.
TaylorSwift 6y ago
From the article: Bloomberg: You seem optimistic researchers will succeed in coming up with vaccines. How do you assess the prospects and potential risks? Stohr: The coronavirus is not a particularly difficult virus to handle. Even the conventional vaccines could make a difference, and we have different approaches, vector vaccines, mRNA. That is very promising. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-18/covid-most-of-world-to-face-virus-without-vaccine-expert-says?srnd=premium https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-18/covid-mos...

Fjolsvith 6y ago

> I'd be interested to look at HIV and testing in the 80/90s The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms all the time, regardless of whether they were HIV-positive. Those people were so callous in their regard for human safety!

klyrs 6y ago
The same political division occurred back then. The right fights for abstainance-only sex ed; the left fights for harm-reduction such as prophylactics and teaching to the science. But to address the absolutism in your question. If everybody in possession of a penis wore a condom at all times (a) they'd get nasty and possibly gangrenous, [so i'll assume you mean "when the penis is deployed in/on/around a second party"] and (b) it would reduce the birth rate by about 90%.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  > If everybody in possession of a penis wore a condom at all times That would be about as likely as everyone wearing a mask at all times.
  - klyrs 6y ago
    This is a thing you wrote. I agree, very unlikely > The thing I just can't understand is why they didn't require everyone back then to wear condoms all the time
    - Fjolsvith 6y ago
      Fauci saying that masks are not effective protection from coronavirus: https://streamable.com/oml2rf https://streamable.com/oml2rf Its not just me.
somewhereoutth 6y ago
The distinction is consent. You would need to get meaningful consent from everyone present when you walked into a store without a mask. EDIT: Actually not quite. To elaborate a little further - it has become understood that it is just and reasonable for the state to have jurisdiction over interpersonal interactions that involve money (though the converse is not necessarily implied) - this is 'the market'. Thus going to the store operates under a different regime than going to a friend's birthday party in their own home. Your example would equate to the state mandating condom usage with prostitution, assuming that was legal in the first place. What you get up to at the store can be regulated by the state - what you get up to in the bedroom (without financial exchange) should not - assuming meaningful consent