If a test doesn't give a result in a few seconds the queues at the testing stations will become a perfect venue for spreading the virus.
A Third Solution
451–460 of 535 posts
Re: A Third Solution
#452> Even with imperfect screening, if we are able to prevent 90% of disease transmission, then the virus’s reproductive number, or R0, will drop below one and the pandemic will quickly fade. There is no risk of reintroduction from the outside because any new outbreaks will quickly be caught and contained. If used consistently, there will be no second wave, ever. This is dangerously wrong. If you reduce R0 below 1, you…
Also remember this is literally a virus that emerged from animals in the first place (zoonotic transmission). There will always be animal reservoirs of this. For that reason, and those you outlined, we could achieve the flawless techno-totalitarian state that so many well-intentioned citizens are practically begging for, and we would still be screwed. The only stable long-term solution is widespread exposure; ie how…
I really feel like we're spitting into the wind. There are very few who agree with this position.
Re: A Third Solution
#453> It is my belief that the best cure for any disease is to avoid the disease. That's not a cure. That is prevention. > As such, I want to avoid ever catching this virus. I’m optimistic that we will eventually have a good vaccine, but until then I need to avoid those who are contagious. Completely unrealistic. Same person would have said in 1918 that they want to avoid ever catching the flu. Maybe back then some HN us…
The author doesn't understand the virus and makes many dubious statements about it. > Catching this virus is a bit like playing a round of Russian roulette. You’ll probably be fine, but you could end up dead. This is a poor analogy. In Russian roulette you have a 1 in 6 chance of getting a bullet in the head. The overall infection fatality rate of COVID-19 is under 1%, and the vast majority of fatalities are people w…
There is too much sense and logic and critical thinking in your response. Brace yourself for the backlash! :)
Re: A Third Solution
#454This isn't a unique idea. This is the mainstream view. Everyone knows we need more testing and that testing is the only way to effectively ease distancing rules. That was a pretty extensive writeup to say what we've been hearing from all rational information outlets for a month.
I have not found any mainstream sources that advocate screening everyone every day (which is very different from simply doing "more testing"). Would love some pointers if I'm wrong.
I suggested testing everyone every month about a month ago. This is a conservative testing frequency that would almost certainly put r0 under 1. Everyone every day is an overkill - why not everyone 4 times a day? What's the rationale for it other than it sounds good?
Re: A Third Solution
#455Most of the statements in this article are false or exaggerated. There are no studies to back them up. These are just personal believes born out of fear. Computer engineers like him should be shamed in public for speaking so confident about things they have not been trained. We, as society, should point the finger at such frauds.
Why can't we reflexively refute things if they are wrong?
Why does it have to be shaming so often these days?
We need fringe opinion, we need new ideas. And new ideas on average means: bad ideas. Still need the process for the one brilliant one among all the bad.
We should encourage people thinking out loud, and accept that this is a process. Including people with bigger-than-life personality, including lunatics who might hit onto something by accident, including amateurs. Please allow creativity again, especially in times of need.
Sharing your thinking isn't misinformation. We don't need other grownups protected from mistaken thinking, because you yourself aren't the only one who can spot it.
Re: A Third Solution
#456Most of the statements in this article are false or exaggerated. There are no studies to back them up. These are just personal believes born out of fear. Computer engineers like him should be shamed in public for speaking so confident about things they have not been trained. We, as society, should point the finger at such frauds.
I think it’s worth a shot. Around the world, countries will use different strategies long-term, and the best strategies will be employed by all others, eventually. If cheap and extensive testing works as a means of reducing infections, then the world will be better off for it. Rest assured, studies will be done, but before they can be done, funding has to be ensured. And that‘s what I see this article try to do.
I think condemning professionals for looking into other domains is not conducive to scientific discourse. The silo-ing of domains that has developed in recent decades IMO leads to local optima.
Re: A Third Solution
#457Prediction: no test development will be faster than the spread of the disease so when tests are easily available many or most densely populated areas will be at over 50% immunity.
Re: A Third Solution
#458The most important thing was mentioned at the top of that article: there is a very effective thing everyone can do right now and does not require any technology: keep your distance. Stay at home, if you can, and in the public, keep distances. Face masks are an important help in this distancing, as there are always situations, where you can't quite maintain the "safe" 2m distance. If we all kept perfect distancing, the virus would be erradicated in 4-8 weeks.
As this isn't always possible and mistakes are made, testing is indeed the other important part of fighting any spreadable disease. The comparison of the Covid-19 infections across different countries show clearly, how effective strict testing is. Any technology, which allows for frequent, wide-range testing is a big help in fighting diseases. If you could run a test when you are like feeling like getting a cold, the common cold and the flu would become much rarer diseases. (Especially if the west picks up the asian habit on wearing face masks, when you have the flu or a cold).
HIV could be erradicated quickly, if there was even a yearly test of the whole population and anyone tested positive would get treated with the antiviral medicine which already exists for quite a while. Once treated, the virus count decreases rapidly and there is very little risk of spreading the virus, especially when taking minimal precautions.
All above of course require for the tests to be available to literally everyone. So this should be a state run function, where you can get tested without any question asked about possible health insurance and also certain treatments should be given free of any charge.
Re: A Third Solution
#459> t’s confusing to me that we’ve implemented harsh and expensive lockdown measures, but have been slow to implement a basic mask mandate.
That's what baffles me the most.
Re: A Third Solution
#460The issue with testing particularly in the US is not at all about the availability of tests or their expense, it is almost entirely political. Political discussions can often be fraught but when it almost the sole reason we don't have adequate testing in the US. It has almost nothing to do with the lack of a technical solution.