General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPEOPLE. THIS.
These are the kind of approaches that we need to be pursuing with massive federal investment. You could throw any amount of money at this problem and it would pale in comparison to the economic cost of not having rapid at home testing of asymptomatics for mitigation.
Link to tweet
?s=20
Link to tweet
?s=20
cilla4progress
(24,736 posts)he wants us to die. Putins orders
2naSalit
(86,636 posts)Fiendish Thingy
(15,619 posts)enki23
(7,789 posts)The idea here would be to have super cheap tests that probably will only catch it when you're shedding tons of virus. But the idea, and there's potentially some merit to it, is that's exactly when you would need to isolate. Even a crappy test might work most of the time for people who are most likely to actively transmit, and that could cut down on spread in a very big way. This wouldn't be the test you'd want to absolutely confirm a suspected case. This would be a widespread, widely-adopted solution akin to taking people's temperatures, but much more accurate than that. And if it's negative one day, you'd still maybe get a positive the next day. The idea here would be to test everyone basically all the time.
It's potentially a game-changer, but there are some big ifs. The most obvious problems I see are production volume, logistics, compliance, and government support. Maybe the test would be good enough, if you could reliably be sure people were actually using it, and doing so properly. But we'd need to have a system to get them in enough numbers into enough peoples' hands, and that would mean building a new industry right now on demand.
And then you'd need to get the paranoid public to actually use it as intended.