91% specificity isn't ideal, but it may be perfectly adequate for getting a bunch of the workforce back, mobilizing essential workers strategically around high-risk populations & getting a handle on true CFR by demohttps://twitter.com/barneyp/status/1245042658914918400 …
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
We won't have vaccine for a year - maybe more. Telling a massive segment it the population they're not allowed to work or go out isn't completely unacceptable. You will have to integrate testing of all sorts, but you will have to let people out.
It can't be a matter of force/differing legal enforcement. 91% specificity means many who test positive after one test will not actually have antibodies. It'll be helpful in cautiously spinning back up in areas where serious risk remains even with reasonable precautions
-
-
Sure, we absolutely need both. I just see some premature reliance on the idea of only letting recovereds back into the world which will probably cause more problems than it helps as it might cause serious resentment and unrest.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Realistically, the right to work has to rely more on individual willingness to adhere to newly burdensome hygienic practices & employers' willingness to enable + enforce compliance. But this is *really* challenging in a lot of industries
-
I don't think that will be a big deal overall. People obviously want to work, and companies want to have functioning workforce.
End of conversation
New conversation -
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.