3 ms·

"In fact, acquaintances asked me "why did you get tested if you didn't have any symptoms? don't you have anything better to do?"." This is a simple matter of e

"In fact, acquaintances asked me "why did you get tested if you didn't have any symptoms? don't you have anything better to do?"." This is a simple matter of educating the public. The government has done this effectively in, say, wartime, when the importance of acting a certain way (ex. "Loose Lips Sink Ships") is emphasized. You can get nearly everyone on board if the government is competent, on the same side of the issue, and determined. Sadly, in the US we have bickering, incompetent, and ignorant government officials which are often making things worse by ignoring the science or acting directly contrary to it.

spion 6y ago
You need both good leadership and good support. The sense of unity should extend to an actual implementation of unity as well: monetary support for people while they self-isolate would go a long way, for example. Unfortunately I'm afraid that at this point its way too late. The window has moved and the new accepted normal seems to be lots of people dying from the virus. Due to privacy protection those people are also largely invisible to the majority of the population, except for their loved ones - an abstract number. There is also a general sense that "testing doesn't work" - even more so accentuated by the repeated insistence of various medical professionals that rapid tests are "not reliable" (which misses the point - they are not for diagnosis but they're a good infection control tool) and a focus on the vaccines. Success for rapid tests is therefore highly unlikely at this point. Could have worked 3 or 4 months ago. Maybe if there are huge incentives to get tested and a large campaign to inform the public, it could work - but otherwise I doubt it.
tclancy 6y ago
_The government has done this effectively in, say, wartime, when the importance of acting a certain way (ex. "Loose Lips Sink Ships") is emphasized._ That was a long time ago when the vast majority of media available to people was willing to go along with what the government told them was ok or not ok to print. Even if you got 90% of the media on board today, think of the number of Facebook clicks and thus fat stacks of ad revenue one media outlet could generate by just posting a couple of stories a week that "present another viewpoint" or "ask questions" about "the debate". In funding our news via ad revenue we have turned all issues into a decision of Coke versus Pepsi and tossed any idea of a mutually-agreed upon reality out the door.
xrikcus 6y ago
It isn't just a matter of education. It's a matter of setting incentives as well. If the downside of getting tested when asymptomatic, and getting a positive result, is having to quarantine and losing two weeks of work then no level of education will get enough people to do that. If you also guarantee their wages, then that's different.
thaumasiotes 6y ago
> "why did you get tested if you didn't have any symptoms? don't you have anything better to do?" I mean, I've been known to use the blood pressure machines that drug stores make available mostly because I like the feeling of pressure on my arm. Maybe you didn't have anything better to do. People do lots of things.

spion 6y ago

You need both good leadership and good support. The sense of unity should extend to an actual implementation of unity as well: monetary support for people while they self-isolate would go a long way, for example. Unfortunately I'm afraid that at this point its way too late. The window has moved and the new accepted normal seems to be lots of people dying from the virus. Due to privacy protection those people are also largely invisible to the majority of the population, except for their loved ones - an abstract number. There is also a general sense that "testing doesn't work" - even more so accentuated by the repeated insistence of various medical professionals that rapid tests are "not reliable" (which misses the point - they are not for diagnosis but they're a good infection control tool) and a focus on the vaccines. Success for rapid tests is therefore highly unlikely at this point. Could have worked 3 or 4 months ago. Maybe if there are huge incentives to get tested and a large campaign to inform the public, it could work - but otherwise I doubt it.

tclancy 6y ago

_The government has done this effectively in, say, wartime, when the importance of acting a certain way (ex. "Loose Lips Sink Ships") is emphasized._ That was a long time ago when the vast majority of media available to people was willing to go along with what the government told them was ok or not ok to print. Even if you got 90% of the media on board today, think of the number of Facebook clicks and thus fat stacks of ad revenue one media outlet could generate by just posting a couple of stories a week that "present another viewpoint" or "ask questions" about "the debate". In funding our news via ad revenue we have turned all issues into a decision of Coke versus Pepsi and tossed any idea of a mutually-agreed upon reality out the door.

xrikcus 6y ago

It isn't just a matter of education. It's a matter of setting incentives as well. If the downside of getting tested when asymptomatic, and getting a positive result, is having to quarantine and losing two weeks of work then no level of education will get enough people to do that. If you also guarantee their wages, then that's different.

thaumasiotes 6y ago

> "why did you get tested if you didn't have any symptoms? don't you have anything better to do?" I mean, I've been known to use the blood pressure machines that drug stores make available mostly because I like the feeling of pressure on my arm. Maybe you didn't have anything better to do. People do lots of things.