That’s what I’ve been asking! Testing *everybody* isn’t going to do any good-it’s just going to overwhelm our healthcare facilities and then make people panic if the # of cases is high. However, if we’re testing people who are symptomatic, then we’re using our resources wisely.
-
-
-
We already know it is crazy contagious; we also know that the vast majority of cases are mild and even *asymtomatic*. So, other than data (“understanding the epidemiology,” as he said), testing for the sake of testing is not going to improve outcomes one iota.
- 4 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
If only Mr. Trump had accepted test kits from WHO when they were offered.
-
The CDC has NEVER done that
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
I test today, I’m negative. What happens after that? Do I live in a bubble isolated from the world? No. Of course not. So why did I get tested? I’d have to do one every day. It’s ridiculous
-
Even if you're negative some reasonable social distancing is probably not a bad idea, especially if your family or social circle also include at-risk individuals.
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
It doesn't need to be "widespread", but there should be testing to know where it is and where it is going. Helps make smart(er) decisions.
-
Bottom line, we are behind on testing. Having data helps guide decision making. Or you can just cancel everything....
- 1 réponse de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
“In communities that have transmission, it’s ...important to do enuf testing to understand the epidemiology...that kind of testing is critical,” says the acting surgeon general.
#COVID19 -
Pretty much every city has community transmission in the US, so where are the tests?
#COVID19#WhereAreTheTestKits - 2 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.