The editors of the Washington Post tell us that unlocking the economy can’t take place until there’s a national diagnostic testing plan:
THE CURRENT approach to the coronavirus pandemic in the United States is based on wishful thinking — that a vaccine or drug therapy will be available by the end of the year, or sooner; that death and illness will taper off with the summer heat, and not come back next fall. But what if none of this happens? What if the novel coronavirus sticks around for a year or two or longer? In that case, diagnostic testing will be critical to our ability to manage lives, jobs, schools and health. Yet we still lack a federal strategy to get there.
Diagnostic testing is important, absent a vaccine or therapy, as part of a concerted effort to identify the sick, isolate and treat them, and allow everyone else to get back to business. Right now, testing is the foundation of state decisions about reopening, yet the testing landscape is disorderly and inadequate. After a miserable start, the pace of testing is slowly ramping up, now exceeding 400,000 daily. But that is still far, far below what experts say would be required to sustain a new normal. The effort has been left to 50 states and a hodgepodge of academic laboratories, hospitals and private companies. Some laboratories are overwhelmed, and others underutilized.
I found their characterization of a vaccine, drug therapy, or spontaneous decline in cases of COVID-19 as wishful thinking while pointing to diagnostic testing as a practical solution grimly amusing. Rather than talking tactics they should start thinking about logistics.
Were they to do so they would realize that the resources for diagnostic testing at the scale that would be necessary to do what they’re talking about are beyond our grasp and will remain so. Just to give them a head start, there are 330 million people in the U. S. Enough diagnostic testing to convey the necessary level of security would not be instantaneous and it would not be a one-time matter. It would be like painting a wall by casting drops against it from a brush. Worse.
I agree that testing could allow us to focus resources where they’re needed just not diagnostic testing.
I also agree with the editors that there’s one ingredient necessary to unlocking which is missing. Pragmatism. As long as the “no sparrow falls” standard is being held up as the objective, we’ll never reopen.
Spiked has a view. But this just shows there are serious people who have a different view of this pandemic
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/15/we-could-open-up-again-and-forget-the-whole-thing/
https://www.spiked-online.com/2020/05/22/nothing-can-justify-this-destruction-of-peoples-lives/
We have conducted more tests per capita than China, three times as many per capita as South Korea, and twenty times per capita the number in Japan or Taiwan. Concluding that diagnostic testing alone is a solution is untenable.
If we had started effective testing as early as South Korea we would not have needed as much testing either. Avoiding large scale outbreaks ion the future absent effective testing is untenable.
Wow! I can see why people believe stuff like Drew does if they read someone as ignorant as Wittkowski. The data Drew cited yesterday showed that 5% of those in the aged 50-64 ago group were hospitalized, as opposed to 7% in the over 65 group. This is not just a disease for those in nursing homes about to die. He completely ignores the need for massive increases in the number of ICU beds. If you are willing to lie and leave out important details, then Covid is a trivial disease.
Steve
BTW, who is holding up the no sparrow standard?
Steve
It’s pretty obvious that what’s happening will happen whatever Governors want. Young and healthy will party on, eventually reaching herd immunity if there’s such a thing. Increased hospitalizations will mostly happen in clusters moving through time. Too bad the ICU beds aren’t mobile. Maybe they should spend some dollars on that.
Illinois’s governor and Chicago’s mayor to name two. Pritzker has been backed into a corner on reopening but Lightfoot has backed him up by refusing to reopen Chicago as much as the state is reopening which goes a long way to nullifying the limited reopening.
‘I agree that testing could allow us to focus resources where they’re needed just not diagnostic testing.’
I think it’s pretty clear now where to focus resources. On the old, the very sick, and people with compromised immune systems. Those states who did that (partly due to learning from other states’ mistakes) suffered far fewer deaths and hospital stays than those who did not.
‘BTW, who is holding up the no sparrow standard?’
Those governors who keep on extending lockdowns.
“Those governors who keep on extending lockdowns.”
All of those governors have laid out plans for opening that do not require reaching zero deaths.
“On the old, the very sick,”
Define old. From the article Drew linked to it showed that about 5% of those who have Covid above the age of 50 need admission.
Steve
Do you have anything, steve, other than “if they disagree with me, they are wrong? Idioys, probably.”
The predictions and predictors you have clung to have been so wrong as to be laughable. Its not even close.
Nope, I actually read the predictions. You just quote people who probably didnt read them either.
Do you have anything other that claiming I am wrong? As I noted, every governor has out an opening plan. If you disagree then point out which governor does not. As to Wittkowski I actually cited the paper to which you linked. You, via your expert, claim this only affects very old nursing home patients. Using your own data I note that 5% of people between 50-64 end up hospitalized as compared with 7% of those over 65. Note that Wittkowski does not cite to any data anywhere in his claims. That is usually the case for conservatives.
Question- Do you even read the stuff you cite?
Steve
Nice try, steve. No sale. First, I simply cited two points of view; not endorse them. (I think Dave missed the point as well, as it had nothing to do with testing) The point is that there is no monolithic view that the course chosen was correct. Only Don Lemmon and you seem to think so. But with every passing day it becomes clearer that many, many people (not as worthy as the Great and Magnificent Steve, understand) disagree, and disagreed from the start.
And when we really look at the data we find that the total lockdown strategy, the real essence of this whole debate, is a second or third order (fourth order?) effect, and didn’t change outcomes materially. I realize you can’t admit that because you started out defending Ferguson and it went from there. So you are stuck.
But facts are stubborn things. The hysteria was just that. Hysteria. The predictions failed miserably. And a defense of the cost benefit is now just plain ludicrous. Keep throwing out random and narrow statistics if it makes you feel better, but any view from a big and overall perspective says the whole thing was folly.
See you on the beach.
‘“Those governors who keep on extending lockdowns.â€
All of those governors have laid out plans for opening that do not require reaching zero deaths.’
And most of those plans require that a vaccine be available for everyone before they exit lockdown. The reason behind the massive push for a vaccine. Only IMO once a vaccine is out these same governors will again move the goalposts and require it to be 100% safe and effective. That is if there is any COVID-19 left to vaccinate for. Oxford University is afraid they won’t be able to prove their vaccine works because too few of their study subjects might not get sick. Other organizations are terminating their research for the same reason.
“On the old, the very sick,â€
Define old. From the article Drew linked to it showed that about 5% of those who have Covid above the age of 50 need admission.
5% of over those 50 in the US being admitted to hospitals is a f**kin lot of people as you found out over the last few months. The majority of deaths from Kung Flu in the US have been in nursing homes and 24/7/365 care facilities housing the very old and the very sick. According to the CDC as of 5/20/2020 over 92% of the total deaths were people aged 55 and up, over 59% of the total were ages 75 and up. However you want to definite it that’s old. Meanwhile less than a 100 deaths for anyone less than age 25. Now that the data is known, keeping the healthy, willing, and able locked up becomes less a health issue and more than a political issue, otherwise ‘I don’t want to be blamed for any COVID-19 deaths on my watch no matter how many other people die from something due to being locked down’.
So you would choose 55? If you are going to target a group you need to define that group. You need to see if the group you target can be done w/o killing the economy. Over 20% of our labor force is over 55. If your targeting assumes you are going to keep the at risk group at home how do we return to normal while keeping 20% of the labor force at home. In short, as I have asked before, what is the plan for reducing risk to the at risk group? Still have not seen one. Also bear in mind that I think we should look at more than deaths, including morbidities and admissions. If the plan is that we just ignore long term health effects and concentrate only in deaths then it should say so.
Steve