| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing 13:54 - Apr 1 with 3660 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 13:56 - Apr 1 with 2139 views | Keno |
as I understand it if you can test a large number of people you may find some of them have already had the virus and can therefore go back into the community making it easier to identify who needs to be isolated |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 13:57 - Apr 1 with 2143 views | WeWereZombies |
Because if you know who has a disease then you can impress upon them that they need to isolate, you have a better chance of identifying who has been in contact with a disease carrier and you can concentrate on preparing to treat people who are likely to suffer from the disease? |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 13:58 - Apr 1 with 2130 views | Eireannach_gorm |
You can then keep the infected people away from the uninfected. |  | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:00 - Apr 1 with 2107 views | bluelagos |
For NHS workers it will enable them to return to work when they might otherwise self isolate for a period of time. Given the projected level of illnesses - a lack of NHS staff could cost significant lives if the NHS is overwhelmed. In Italy they took a decision to not treat anyone over 65, such was the crisis... |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:03 - Apr 1 with 2087 views | Churchman |
Without any evidence, my understanding is that with testing you could potentially discount the disease from those who are self isolating because of symptoms for them/their families. That would have an impact on the 20+% of nhs staff currently not working. You could also test those in work who shouldn’t be, thus lowering the rate of infection on already vulnerable people. The same applies to care home staff, paramedic crews,St john staff, Red Cross, police etc etc. Testing would help identify hotspots too. |  | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:06 - Apr 1 with 2068 views | itfcjoe |
The more you test, the more successful any self isolation is - South Korea have managed to slow rate down more than anyone else by mass testing.
It means you can effectively know who has it, who has had it, and who hasn't which means things can carry on much more normally depending on what category you fall into - whilst also slowing the spread. |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:07 - Apr 1 with 2064 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 13:58 - Apr 1 by Eireannach_gorm |
You can then keep the infected people away from the uninfected. |
How?
How does the average family of four do this? In anycase we are operating no mix households and social distances.
I'm genuinely not trying to start an argument, I'm intrigued. It seems to me that people are getting in a tiz over current testing methods. Ok, so if someone is showing symptoms then their isolation will be not going to the shops and everyone in the household doing the same.
The problem though is that it has such a large dormant period and as I understand it the test takes a day or two to get the results and you aren't completely in the clear until you have tested negative twice. A doctor was on the radio saying that it can take 6 days to get two negative tests and then what - chances are you have been mixing while the tests have been going on and even if you get the all clear you are straight back into the fire again, do you get tested every week? | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:09 - Apr 1 with 2039 views | Radlett_blue |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:07 - Apr 1 by Lord_Lucan |
How?
How does the average family of four do this? In anycase we are operating no mix households and social distances.
I'm genuinely not trying to start an argument, I'm intrigued. It seems to me that people are getting in a tiz over current testing methods. Ok, so if someone is showing symptoms then their isolation will be not going to the shops and everyone in the household doing the same.
The problem though is that it has such a large dormant period and as I understand it the test takes a day or two to get the results and you aren't completely in the clear until you have tested negative twice. A doctor was on the radio saying that it can take 6 days to get two negative tests and then what - chances are you have been mixing while the tests have been going on and even if you get the all clear you are straight back into the fire again, do you get tested every week? |
Agree. There is little point in mass testing as you can't keep testing the whole population. Try to protect health workers and other essential workers, yes. Otherwise,, I don't see a huge benefit from more testing as long as those with symptoms self isolate. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:10 - Apr 1 with 2034 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:00 - Apr 1 by bluelagos |
For NHS workers it will enable them to return to work when they might otherwise self isolate for a period of time. Given the projected level of illnesses - a lack of NHS staff could cost significant lives if the NHS is overwhelmed. In Italy they took a decision to not treat anyone over 65, such was the crisis... |
I can see the argument for NHS workers but as I just mentioned in another post, once they get the all clear they are back into the furnace.
I completely see the point about testing but I don't get that it is the solution as many seem to think it is.
Of course the proposed new instant tests are a different matter. | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:12 - Apr 1 with 2005 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:09 - Apr 1 by Radlett_blue |
Agree. There is little point in mass testing as you can't keep testing the whole population. Try to protect health workers and other essential workers, yes. Otherwise,, I don't see a huge benefit from more testing as long as those with symptoms self isolate. |
Well I'm just glad it isn't just me. For one moment I though I was the only madman in the world. | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:13 - Apr 1 with 1996 views | bluelagos |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:10 - Apr 1 by Lord_Lucan |
I can see the argument for NHS workers but as I just mentioned in another post, once they get the all clear they are back into the furnace.
I completely see the point about testing but I don't get that it is the solution as many seem to think it is.
Of course the proposed new instant tests are a different matter. |
The game changer will be when they can test whether you have had the virus. As they don't believe people can get it twice - you would be free to carry on with your life.
Think that could be how the lockdown is eventually unlocked. Going to be a whole new meltdown over who gets those tests first :-) [Post edited 1 Apr 2020 15:23]
| |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:15 - Apr 1 with 1992 views | gordon |
In South Korea, where it's been most effective, people are texted the result within 24 hours, and can stop for a drive through test on the way to work. If they are positive, an app alerts anyone they've come into contact with in the previous e.g. 5 days.
While we've got large-scale lockdown it isn't as relevant, but it's a means to get out of lockdown without causing a massive spike in infections. |  | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:15 - Apr 1 with 1992 views | itfcjoe |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:00 - Apr 1 by bluelagos |
For NHS workers it will enable them to return to work when they might otherwise self isolate for a period of time. Given the projected level of illnesses - a lack of NHS staff could cost significant lives if the NHS is overwhelmed. In Italy they took a decision to not treat anyone over 65, such was the crisis... |
85% of NHS staff currently self isolating were found not to have it when tested.
If that figure is shown to be the case throughout the whole service it is a massive amount of people who could be redeployed | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:20 - Apr 1 with 1967 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:15 - Apr 1 by itfcjoe |
85% of NHS staff currently self isolating were found not to have it when tested.
If that figure is shown to be the case throughout the whole service it is a massive amount of people who could be redeployed |
Then why were they self isolating. | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:21 - Apr 1 with 1959 views | itfcjoe |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:20 - Apr 1 by Lord_Lucan |
Then why were they self isolating. |
Because them, or a family member, has shown symptoms as per the Govt guidelines | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:24 - Apr 1 with 1938 views | BloomBlue |
It doesn't reduce the deaths, some people are talking as if testing is a cure. Testing helps reduce the spread but the testing only tells you once you have it, so by the time you've proved positive with a test you've probably already given to the rest of the family / those you're self isolating it
That's why testing the whole population with the current test is pointless the important test is the one which proves you had it.
But if they can test NHS staff who think they have it they can prove they don't have and can return to work. Obviously those that have it can also return to work after 14 days (if it doesn't kill them) and actually it will be safer for them as they have the antibody |  | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:25 - Apr 1 with 1931 views | Radlett_blue |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:21 - Apr 1 by itfcjoe |
Because them, or a family member, has shown symptoms as per the Govt guidelines |
I think we all agree that testing NHS workers is sensible & should be a priority. But no-one has yet explained the advantage of general mass testing, unless you could test the whole population every day. | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:27 - Apr 1 with 1921 views | Lord_Lucan |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:21 - Apr 1 by itfcjoe |
Because them, or a family member, has shown symptoms as per the Govt guidelines |
But a nurse will come into daily contact with someone who has shown symptoms. | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:36 - Apr 1 with 1894 views | itfcjoe |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:27 - Apr 1 by Lord_Lucan |
But a nurse will come into daily contact with someone who has shown symptoms. |
Yep, but they will (if they have any) be wearing PPE and regularly sanitising as best they can | |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:43 - Apr 1 with 1869 views | eireblue |
Part of the government strategy is built on understanding how the virus spreads.
Without good data, your models, and hence decision making is not informed.
The decision making is therefore made retrospectively, e.g. X number of deaths, with a change in x, probably means something is working not working.
If the deaths start to recede, you still need to model, best way to continue reducing the propagation of the virus, until a vaccine is ready, e.g. the curve needs to stay flat.
Again, how you decide that, can be informed by more accurate data, and if at some point track and trace starts to become a viable option, then that will need testing to be available to be effective. |  | | |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:45 - Apr 1 with 1863 views | BrixtonBlue |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:25 - Apr 1 by Radlett_blue |
I think we all agree that testing NHS workers is sensible & should be a priority. But no-one has yet explained the advantage of general mass testing, unless you could test the whole population every day. |
With mass testing you can tell who definitely has it... then those people will be required to properly isolate (i.e. no popping to the shops). That halts the spread.
Unless I'm missing something this seems fairly obvious. |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:47 - Apr 1 with 1859 views | giant_stow |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:25 - Apr 1 by Radlett_blue |
I think we all agree that testing NHS workers is sensible & should be a priority. But no-one has yet explained the advantage of general mass testing, unless you could test the whole population every day. |
the main advantage I can think of is that mass testing would serve as a way out of lockdown. Or to put it another way, lockdown's only requried because we can't test everyone loads of times. |  |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:53 - Apr 1 with 1830 views | sparks |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:06 - Apr 1 by itfcjoe |
The more you test, the more successful any self isolation is - South Korea have managed to slow rate down more than anyone else by mass testing.
It means you can effectively know who has it, who has had it, and who hasn't which means things can carry on much more normally depending on what category you fall into - whilst also slowing the spread. |
SK succeeded by very intensive tracing and isolation at early stages. |  |
| The presence of those seeking the truth is infinitely to be preferred to the presence of those who think they've found it.
(Sir Terry Pratchett) | | Poll: | Is Fred drunk this morning? |
| |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:58 - Apr 1 with 1815 views | Moriarty |
| Without referring to a link by someone else, can anyone explain why mass testing on 14:06 - Apr 1 by itfcjoe |
The more you test, the more successful any self isolation is - South Korea have managed to slow rate down more than anyone else by mass testing.
It means you can effectively know who has it, who has had it, and who hasn't which means things can carry on much more normally depending on what category you fall into - whilst also slowing the spread. |
The SK model is the model we’re following in Ireland.
WHO’s mantra has been test, test test. Community spread of the virus by people with little or no symptoms, and therefore don’t think they have it, is a big concern. When people test positive and have no idea where they got it, the concerns become obvious, especially as 1 person can infect 400 in 4 weeks. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
