AirWorthy99 wrote:Aaron747 wrote:AirWorthy99 wrote:
Its going to take a lot of time to test the entire population 300+ million plus, let alone serology tests.
I suggest, like I mentioned millions of times, those who are vulnerable or at risk, should stay put. The rest of us, use common sense, avoid gathering with too many people etc, work from home those that can, use internet for ordering food and delivery like we do now, etc.
Why can't we use the Swedish method? What's wrong with that method? UK, France and many other nations that don't have the Swedish method have higher deaths per capita than Sweden.
Probably not a good idea to use the Swedish approach. Norway has a similar population density and is faring much better.
Your suggestion is epidemiologically inadequate because we don't know exactly who is vulnerable or at risk. And for people to feel secure, they need good information as flare-ups occur, and the tracking needs to be on-point so we don't needlessly re-shutdown places that have reopened. Testing is the way to provide that.
Interesting that you mention time for testing. If there was a SERIOUS mobilization effort (which would require serious and focused government leadership), I saw a model where it is quite possible to test up to 250 million people in just two weeks once the antibody serology test is available, in combination with the COVID infection test already available of course. For the Apollo program, we were able to mobilize 400,000 engineers and technicians across hundreds of companies in the Moon effort - this mobilization would need to be similar, employing university and private sector resources. To test 250m people in two weeks, you'd need to figure on roughly 17.8m completed tests per day, and at a rate of 60 tests per/technician would require ~295K trained testing staff to administer. Add in the manpower for processing the results, and you'd need another 100K people at least. There are a lot of health professionals already qualified to administer and process serology tests, so it's really just a matter of ramping this type of program up when the test is ready. That would bring tremendous peace of mind to the public as things re-open.
One thing for certain about COVID19, we know almost nothing. The Swedes are building herd immunity, that's their strategy. Perhaps they are taking a big hit now, but a few months down the road to a year, they stop dramatically the deaths once everyone got COVID, no need to wait for a vaccine. Whereas with the current system, we are all hiding from COVID19, we will continuously get deaths until we get a vaccine. We don't know. And maybe down the road we will say that the Swedes were right or wrong, and the rest of the world right or wrong.
But considering they have schools open, have restaurants open, parks etc, and the deaths per capita are lower than Spain, France and the UK, tells me they are getting a hit now which seems rather low with the amount of things working normally, compared to the rest of the countries and with the measures they have enforced.
I tend to agree. There is a cognitive / media bias against tolerating 20 deaths right now, even if it saves 2,000 deaths later. Coronavirus is a significant public health threat, but we tolerate significant public health threats (obesity, alcohol, traffic) constantly. These can all be reduced if we submit to police regulation of food intake, for example. If police compelled people to exercise, that would help too. But we don't, because it isn't important enough. And those are leading causes of death. People willingly make this tradeoff for reasons of personal freedom and work.
The "shelter at home" thing is not proven to prevent full infection over a 1 year period. Which incidentally is still the mainstream prediction. So... the benefit of shelter at home is to manage the ICU capacity factor. Nothing else has any scientific claim or basis AFAIK. And the cost is... indescribable. A vast loss of tens of millions of human working lives. That is a human tragedy too. Communities have been destroyed.
Professionals in US / EU are among the last who will face real economic vulnerability / starvation, and they tend to be older in years. Western affluent professionals are biased personally, as to the tradeoff between public health effects of the virus (which affect them disproportionately) versus the global economy (which affects poor people disproportionately). The main factor affecting the public health of global poor people is not Coronavirus, but the global economy.