I know people deathly ill who were turned away. I'd rather CDC statisticians decide so we can actually fight this thing with some knowledge...
-
-
You are implying that you know better than a doctor who saw them that these particular people should have been tested given the available resources and they mistakenly weren't. Is my assessment accurate?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Are you messing with me on a Tuesday night in the middle of a pandemic on purpose? Of course I'm not saying that and your argument belies your disingenuousness. You've known me what 15, 20 years?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Sinan, I am attacking your argument, not you as a person. That doctor could have made the right decision given the resources - we don't know it. Let them decide - they are trained clinical professionals fighting for everyone.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Of course I'm not saying "I know better than a doctor who saw..." I'm saying trained doctors are making the best decisions they can in a tough situation, but those decisions are ad hoc and geared toward symptomatic cases and people that can afford to drive to a testing site...
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @sinanaral @realAkhmed and
At the same time we have evidence that asymptomatic cases are testing positive at high rates... So, I'm saying we can do better than ad hoc under stress decisions, to learn more about prevalence and save many lives as a result. That's what I'm saying I guess.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, I agree it makes perfect sense once testing capacity allows it. My issue is (exactly as your example demonstrated!) the doctors don't even have tests to test all the deathly ill people who are already at the hospital today and have to resort to clinical assessment / travel h
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Of course I understand the capacity constraint argument. But that argument a) weakens by the minute as tests ramp up and b) does not deny the importance of those made deathly ill by the asymptotic positives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Yes, prioritization in a constrained environment I feel is the essence of the whole problem now. Once the tests become less/un-constrained, it would hopefully change into a different problem. Until then I think we should get out of their way, stay home and let them save lives.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Many epidemiologists are saying that a lack of representative surveillance testing is costing lives not saving them.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I do not have a single colleague who has said this so far 
-
-
I've heard several epidemiologists support this argument. Isn't John Ioannidis an epidemiologist @ Stanford?
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.