Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

kpete

(71,994 posts)
Sun Jul 26, 2020, 05:57 PM Jul 2020

PEOPLE. 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.


?s=20


?s=20
4 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PEOPLE. THIS. (Original Post) kpete Jul 2020 OP
you don't seem to get it cilla4progress Jul 2020 #1
+1 2naSalit Jul 2020 #2
What are the false pos/neg rates? Seems almost too good to be true nt Fiendish Thingy Jul 2020 #3
They're poor. But there is more to it. enki23 Jul 2020 #4

enki23

(7,789 posts)
4. They're poor. But there is more to it.
Sun Jul 26, 2020, 06:28 PM
Jul 2020

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.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»PEOPLE. THIS.