| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing 13:54 - Apr 1 with 3658 views | Lord_Lucan |
would result in a significant reduction in deaths.
I may be a bit thick but I don't see the equation. |  |
| |  |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 02:11 - Apr 2 with 662 views | J2BLUE |
The antibody tests where you can do them at home and get a result in 15 minutes seem to be the real gamechanger.
If immunity is confirmed, and I think the people who have 'got it twice' are suspected of getting a false negative rather than getting it again, then it would be huge.
Once those tests are available commercially there is going to be one massive scramble for them. |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 08:46 - Apr 2 with 592 views | Radlett_blue |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 23:19 - Apr 1 by Herbivore |
A number of people have done in this thread. |
no-one has done - if so, please point me to the post.
Testing of health care & other essential employees - yes.
Antibody testing - yes.
Please explain the benefit of large testing (although you cannot test everyone), if it's that simple. |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 08:49 - Apr 2 with 587 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 08:46 - Apr 2 by Radlett_blue |
no-one has done - if so, please point me to the post.
Testing of health care & other essential employees - yes.
Antibody testing - yes.
Please explain the benefit of large testing (although you cannot test everyone), if it's that simple. |
I already did, when you replied about negative tests.
Several people have given good reasons, you apparently just don't like the answers. |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 08:57 - Apr 2 with 580 views | itfcjoe |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 08:46 - Apr 2 by Radlett_blue |
no-one has done - if so, please point me to the post.
Testing of health care & other essential employees - yes.
Antibody testing - yes.
Please explain the benefit of large testing (although you cannot test everyone), if it's that simple. |
The answers are all through this thread |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:03 - Apr 2 with 575 views | gordon |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 08:46 - Apr 2 by Radlett_blue |
no-one has done - if so, please point me to the post.
Testing of health care & other essential employees - yes.
Antibody testing - yes.
Please explain the benefit of large testing (although you cannot test everyone), if it's that simple. |
With respect, the question should really be - if you think we should deviate from WHO guidelines for dealing with epidemics / COVID-19, and deviate from basic epidemiology, then why do you think that?
The question would better be put to the people in power - why didn't we think testing was important two and a half weeks ago?
|  | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:05 - Apr 2 with 571 views | Andrew4445 |
Both the test to identify if you have the virus and the one to test if you have had it are important, and until we start conducting serious numbers of both we cannot end a general lockdown.
If you have the virus: if you could test the whole population today (I appreciate you can't but it highlights the point) you would immediatley see where the virus was and would be able to limit contact with anyone who has it. Yes it would spread to epople isolating together, but realistically you could end the opporutnities for the virus to spread at a single stroke. Going forwrad you could then test areas where you have flare ups and lockdown parts of the country, parts of towns etc, as opposed to the whole country. At the minute they are trying to control something but have no idea where it is. This makes it very difficult and requires very geenralised measures - they are expensive, less effective and damaging to the economy.
Anti-body testing: this allows you to restart sections of your economy and direct resources to areas with lower anti-body presence. You would actually see at what level your societal immunity was and could see where the greatest risks for flareups and spread are.
The whole point about testing is it allows you to see the picture, to know where you can relax containment and where you have to tighten it. It allows resources to be directed to where they are needed most. At the moment they have no real idea where the virus is so you have to assume it is everywhere. Seeing the picture helps that and you only get to see it by testing vast numbers of people. |  | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:07 - Apr 2 with 567 views | Radlett_blue |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:03 - Apr 2 by gordon |
With respect, the question should really be - if you think we should deviate from WHO guidelines for dealing with epidemics / COVID-19, and deviate from basic epidemiology, then why do you think that?
The question would better be put to the people in power - why didn't we think testing was important two and a half weeks ago?
|
I agree that once a virus is widespread - and it is, hence the lockdown - there is little point to mass testing. It may create some vaguely useful data but because the subject matter is nowhere near homogeneous, the results will be severely flawed.
I do see the point of anti body testing & testing key employees.
Some say that the most pragmatic way out would be via a more nuanced and data-driven approach of mass-testing 75-100,000 people per day. This would not be testing random people but rather those presenting with symptoms, and then tracing all of their contacts (household members, colleagues, flatmates) to ensure they are also tested. All those who are virus-carriers would be put into a mandatory two-week quarantine in their homes, enforced through tracking and fines. This will allow the public health community to identify where exactly the virus is, to break further chains of transmission and to keep case numbers low and within the NHS capacity limit. It would also allow most of society, and the economy, to continue on a somewhat more “normal” basis.
However, I think that such an approach is seriously flawed, even if you do have the capacity to test so many people daily. Tracing all their contacts is near impossible. [Post edited 2 Apr 2020 9:12]
| |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:08 - Apr 2 with 567 views | itfcjoe |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:03 - Apr 2 by gordon |
With respect, the question should really be - if you think we should deviate from WHO guidelines for dealing with epidemics / COVID-19, and deviate from basic epidemiology, then why do you think that?
The question would better be put to the people in power - why didn't we think testing was important two and a half weeks ago?
|
| |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:11 - Apr 2 with 559 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:07 - Apr 2 by Radlett_blue |
I agree that once a virus is widespread - and it is, hence the lockdown - there is little point to mass testing. It may create some vaguely useful data but because the subject matter is nowhere near homogeneous, the results will be severely flawed.
I do see the point of anti body testing & testing key employees.
Some say that the most pragmatic way out would be via a more nuanced and data-driven approach of mass-testing 75-100,000 people per day. This would not be testing random people but rather those presenting with symptoms, and then tracing all of their contacts (household members, colleagues, flatmates) to ensure they are also tested. All those who are virus-carriers would be put into a mandatory two-week quarantine in their homes, enforced through tracking and fines. This will allow the public health community to identify where exactly the virus is, to break further chains of transmission and to keep case numbers low and within the NHS capacity limit. It would also allow most of society, and the economy, to continue on a somewhat more “normal” basis.
However, I think that such an approach is seriously flawed, even if you do have the capacity to test so many people daily. Tracing all their contacts is near impossible. [Post edited 2 Apr 2020 9:12]
|
"there is little point to mass testing."
You're just ignoring what everyone's said in this thread aren't you? | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:19 - Apr 2 with 548 views | gordon |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:07 - Apr 2 by Radlett_blue |
I agree that once a virus is widespread - and it is, hence the lockdown - there is little point to mass testing. It may create some vaguely useful data but because the subject matter is nowhere near homogeneous, the results will be severely flawed.
I do see the point of anti body testing & testing key employees.
Some say that the most pragmatic way out would be via a more nuanced and data-driven approach of mass-testing 75-100,000 people per day. This would not be testing random people but rather those presenting with symptoms, and then tracing all of their contacts (household members, colleagues, flatmates) to ensure they are also tested. All those who are virus-carriers would be put into a mandatory two-week quarantine in their homes, enforced through tracking and fines. This will allow the public health community to identify where exactly the virus is, to break further chains of transmission and to keep case numbers low and within the NHS capacity limit. It would also allow most of society, and the economy, to continue on a somewhat more “normal” basis.
However, I think that such an approach is seriously flawed, even if you do have the capacity to test so many people daily. Tracing all their contacts is near impossible. [Post edited 2 Apr 2020 9:12]
|
Hi Radlett Blue, the approach you've described there is (more or less) how WHO have been dealing with epidemics for years in Africa and other places successfully (without the fines), and its exactly what they recommend in this situation. It's also the approach that has worked successfully in South Korea. [Post edited 2 Apr 2020 9:19]
| | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 11:08 - Apr 2 with 529 views | BloomBlue |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:07 - Apr 2 by Radlett_blue |
I agree that once a virus is widespread - and it is, hence the lockdown - there is little point to mass testing. It may create some vaguely useful data but because the subject matter is nowhere near homogeneous, the results will be severely flawed.
I do see the point of anti body testing & testing key employees.
Some say that the most pragmatic way out would be via a more nuanced and data-driven approach of mass-testing 75-100,000 people per day. This would not be testing random people but rather those presenting with symptoms, and then tracing all of their contacts (household members, colleagues, flatmates) to ensure they are also tested. All those who are virus-carriers would be put into a mandatory two-week quarantine in their homes, enforced through tracking and fines. This will allow the public health community to identify where exactly the virus is, to break further chains of transmission and to keep case numbers low and within the NHS capacity limit. It would also allow most of society, and the economy, to continue on a somewhat more “normal” basis.
However, I think that such an approach is seriously flawed, even if you do have the capacity to test so many people daily. Tracing all their contacts is near impossible. [Post edited 2 Apr 2020 9:12]
|
When you say ;
This would not be testing random people but rather those presenting with symptoms, and then tracing all of their contacts (household members, colleagues, flatmates) to ensure they are also tested. All those who are virus-carriers would be put into a mandatory two-week quarantine in their homes, enforced through tracking and fines.
Enforced tracking people how would you do that? A tag on their legs like we do for criminals?
Also people who don't have it can still catch it and as you say 'tracing all of their contacts' but would you know who you've been in contact with over the last 2 weeks? Which brings us back to tracking everybody in the country, that may work in a Countries like China and South Korea to some degree but it's never going to work in a European country, look how people get upset here when we talk about everyone calling an ID card.
I get it if we're already locked down it's easier to track who you've been with but we have to unlock at some stage and therefore at that point you need to track everyone's movements. I think in China and S Korea that involves an app installed on your phone and it tracks your movements |  | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 11:10 - Apr 2 with 525 views | Herbivore |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 08:46 - Apr 2 by Radlett_blue |
no-one has done - if so, please point me to the post.
Testing of health care & other essential employees - yes.
Antibody testing - yes.
Please explain the benefit of large testing (although you cannot test everyone), if it's that simple. |
Re-read the thread. A number of people have spoken of the benefits of testing. You might disagree with them but that's another matter. |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 15:12 - Apr 2 with 498 views | Eireannach_gorm |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 09:08 - Apr 2 by itfcjoe |
|
John does good work charting the progress of the virus.
Latest chart indicates good news for Italy, not so much for UK or USA (data only as good as the number of tests).
|  | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 18:45 - Apr 2 with 468 views | Radlett_blue |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 15:12 - Apr 2 by Eireannach_gorm |
John does good work charting the progress of the virus.
Latest chart indicates good news for Italy, not so much for UK or USA (data only as good as the number of tests).
|
Those curves all look remarkably similar to me. "China" is slightly misleading, not just because we don't trust their data, but the virus has probably been largely contained in one province. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
