The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It

[TitanTiger 20,475]

@Grumps

Quote

So are you saying that we are spending billions to try to convince people to stay home and wash their hands and wear masks and social distance? Yes, but you won't admit it. I don't want anyone to get sick or to die. But I don't want to waste billions of dollars.

No, I'm saying we spend the money on testing to identify and isolate infected individuals and slow down/prevent the spread.  Many/most states aren't trying to convince anyone to stay home if they test positive, they mandate it.
 

Quote

You are 100% correct. Testing is for when the results of the test might change the plan of action in dealing with the disease.

If I'm 100% correct, then the sentence that follows makes no sense.  I just said that testing is for more than just how we're going to treat a person who comes down with it.  It is also for identifying those infected and quarantining them from the rest of the population to prevent spread from that individual, thus slowing the spread of it overall.

 

Quote

But we didn't try to test the entire population with a test that is virtually irrelevant by the time the test comes back. COVID-19 is deemed by the experts to be non-contagious 10 days after symptoms started if it has been 24 hours since the last symptoms.

To be certain, there are some differences in the diseases, though we didn't know that for certain early on.  HIV/AIDS turned out not to be spread all that easily.  Hell, even drinking after someone or kissing them wasn't a mode of transmission.  You can be infected with this coronavirus by merely talking to someone within 6 feet of distance.  But the point of the testing was to identify the infected and hopefully prevent them from giving it to others.  How much more so is this true with the R-naught value of COVID?  

And many of the tests are not just for symptomatic individuals.  Through contact tracing we also test family members and those who've been in recent close contact with someone infected.  So we get ahead of the game with some.  Plus, I don't know what's happening everywhere else but in Alabama you can get test results in 3 days.  That's plenty of time if you got tested when symptoms first appear to have that info and be sure to quarantine yourself as well as be within a window for it to make sense for people you've been in contact with to get tested.

Quote

I realize that we are not going to agree on this and that is fine. I am in no way trying to minimize the severity of COVID-19. I know that it is way worse than the flu. But that doesn't mean we should waste money trying to make ourselves feel better. When the virus is everywhere like it is now, testing (without a rapid test) and contact tracing is not feasible. When we have rapid tests and there are not nearly as many cases around then testing and contact tracing would be great.

That's just the thing though - you haven't really made your case that it's wasting money or just "to make ourselves feel better."  And we have pretty good evidence from places like South Korea, Singapore, Taiwan and others that widespread contact tracing, testing and quarantining works to more quickly get the spread under control.  Of course we've done hardly any of these things well so far because Trump wasted so much time dismissing it as the flu and a whole bunch of citizens decided to believe randos pushing conspiracy bull**** on Facebook and YouTube.  But that doesn't change the fact that testing and doing these other things will work if we get on with it.

[TitanTiger 20,475]

7 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

My skin is plenty thick and I’ll refrain from calling people names even when I disagree with them or even if I’m sure they are wrong. Bring it on. 

That's your prerogative, but in the mean time, stop whining about it.  It's the nature of the forum your'e in.

[SocialCircle 570]

5 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Dude starts thread after thread in the smack forum trying to use the deaths of real people with real lives and real families to own the libs and then gets pissy over name calling. 

Complete misrepresentation 

[SocialCircle 570]

Just now, TitanTiger said:

That's your prerogative, but in the mean time, stop whining about it.  It's the nature of the forum your'e in.

Not whining. Just pointing it out and pointing out hypocrisy when I see it. 

[TitanTiger 20,475]

1 minute ago, SocialCircle said:

Not whining. Just pointing it out and pointing out hypocrisy when I see it. 

The pointing it out - over and over - is whining.  You're in a forum where it is specifically allowed (within reason).  Drop it.

[SocialCircle 570]

20 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

The pointing it out - over and over - is whining.  You're in a forum where it is specifically allowed (within reason).  Drop it.

I disagree with your interpretation of whining. How many times is over and over again as I have rarely mentioned it.

[TitanTiger 20,475]

1 minute ago, SocialCircle said:

I disagree with your interpretation of whining.

Duly noted.

 

1 minute ago, SocialCircle said:

How many times is over and over again as I have rarely mentioned it.

You've mentioned it multiple times in just this thread.

Regardless of the number, it's enough.  Move on.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Testing provides the possibility of reducing the rate of spread.  This is a positive enough outcome to justify rapid and frequent testing by itself (which we don't yet have).  This is particularly important if we want to "open" our society - schools, etc.  And since we don't yet have a vaccine or a "cure" containing the rate of spread is all we've got.

Development of treatment regiments is a separate issue that is important, but it's certainly not the basis for testing. Again, containing the rate of spread is all we can do while treatment regimens are being developed. 

That's the reason we need abundant, fast testing.

I agree 100% with your post. When we have rapid testing we can do it as frequently as needed to reduce the rate of spread. You stated it perfectly.

You also stated "which we don't have". I agree with that 100% as well.

So, the only thing we have not agreed upon yet is whether we should be spending billions on tests that are not rapid and don't significantly change the plan of treatment. Those are the only tests that I don't understand the value of. 

I sincerely thank you for your effort to understand my point.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

Dude starts thread after thread in the smack forum trying to use the deaths of real people with real lives and real families to own the libs and then gets pissy over name calling. 

Do you think the following comment is inappropriate even for the smack talk forum?:

"And that you chair a schoolboard is a damned embarrassment. I can only hope your input is minimal, because happen to be a ******* idiot that will do far more harm than good."

 

[homersapien 11,368]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

I agree 100% with your post. When we have rapid testing we can do it as frequently as needed to reduce the rate of spread. You stated it perfectly.

You also stated "which we don't have". I agree with that 100% as well.

So, the only thing we have not agreed upon yet is whether we should be spending billions on tests that are not rapid and don't significantly change the plan of treatment. Those are the only tests that I don't understand the value of. 

I sincerely thank you for your effort to understand my point.

This is a qualifier I didn't notice from your earlier posts (from a different thread).

Did you "move the goalpost" by just now adding it, or did I overlook it?

It sounded to me like you were making a general statement of not spending "billions" on testing,  period. You didn't make any such qualifications about how that money should be spent. (I might add I gave you plenty of opportunity to do so considering the gist of my replies.)

My assumption was the "billions" of dollars you objected to spending would be used to expand our capability to conduct fast tests in large numbers. (Ideally to the point where results are known in minutes or hours - like current flu tests - and there would be enough tests available for effective, real time control. )  As we both acknowledge, we are a long way from being there. 

IMO, it's going to take a federally coordinated effort and lots of money (perhaps billions) to develop the testing we really need, neither of which we have started to do.

 

[wdefromtx 3,159]

12 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Do you think the following comment is inappropriate even for the smack talk forum?:

"And that you chair a schoolboard is a damned embarrassment. I can only hope your input is minimal, because happen to be a ******* idiot that will do far more harm than good."

 

It just shows people’s true character and intelligence when they start trying to get that personal flinging insults at people on a message board. I bet they are a joy to be around. Lmao 

[McLoofus 35,182]

19 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Do you think the following comment is inappropriate even for the smack talk forum?:

"And that you chair a schoolboard is a damned embarrassment. I can only hope your input is minimal, because happen to be a ******* idiot that will do far more harm than good."

The guy has brought it up himself many times. Flaunt your creds, prepare to have your creds discussed in return. 

Full disclosure, though. You're asking the wrong guy about standards of propriety. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This is a qualifier I didn't notice from your earlier posts - "did you move the goalpost" by just now adding it, or did I overlook it?

It sounded to me like you were making a general statement of not spending "billions" on testing,  period. You didn't make any such qualifications about how that money should or would be spent.

(I might add I gave you plenty of opportunity to do so considering the gist of my replies.)

My assumption was the "billions" of dollars you objected to spending would be used to expand our capability to conduct fast tests in large numbers. (Ideally to the point where results are known in minutes or hours - like current flu tests - and there would be enough tests available for effective, real time control. As we both acknowledge, we are a long way from being there. 

IMO, it's going to take a federally coordinated effort and lots of money (perhaps billions), neither of which we have started to do.

He moved the goalposts awhile back. His complaint suddenly became that "liberals" asking for more tests haven't been specifying that they want more good tests. I'm curious where they'll move next.

 

EDIT: Apologies, and to his credit, Grumps removed the word "liberals" and replaced it with "everyone". Clearly, "everyone" is still very inaccurate, but at least he attempted to de-politicize it. 

 

[SocialCircle 570]

2 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

The guy has brought it up himself many times. Flaunt your creds, prepare to have your creds discussed in return. 

Full disclosure, though. You're asking the wrong guy about standards of propriety. 

I have brought it up in discussions about school. I didn’t bring it up in this discussion because it is or at least it should be completely irrelevant. 

[AUDub 11,147]

8 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

The guy has brought it up himself many times. Flaunt your creds, prepare to have your creds discussed in return. 

Full disclosure, though. You're asking the wrong guy about standards of propriety. 

As Winston Churchill once said, "...don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a piledriver."

Some anvils need to be dropped.

[homersapien 11,368]

6 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

He moved the goalposts awhile back. His complaint suddenly became that "liberals" asking for more tests haven't been specifying that they want more good tests. I'm curious where they'll move next.

Yeah, he equating spending "billions" on testing with doubling down on what we are currently doing, which to me is obviously a non-starter.

Now I am not saying that part of that "billions" shouldn't be directed toward our immediate capabilities, but it's hard for me to imagine anyone would assume we would spend "billions" without the obvious goal of transforming our current availability and speed from the status quo. 

After all, billions is a lot of money.

Apparently that's what he assumed though. He kept talking about people doing what they are currently doing anyway with or without our current testing - which is the obvious point of spending more money on the testing regimen we actually need.

Developing our testing capability is all we've got, and Grump's complaining about the government wasting money on testing?  

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yeah, he equating spending "billions" on testing with doubling down on what we are currently doing, which to me is obviously a non-starter.

Now I am not saying that part of that "billions" shouldn't be directed toward our immediate capabilities, but it's hard for me to imagine anyone would assume we would spend "billions" without the obvious goal of transforming our current availability and speed from the status quo. 

After all, billions is a lot of money.

Apparently that's what he assumed though. He kept talking about people doing what they are currently doing anyway with or without our current testing - which is the obvious point of spending more money on the testing regimen we actually need.

Developing our testing capability is all we've got, and Grump's complaining about the government wasting money on testing?  

He literally started at "conclusion" and has been trying to figure out how he arrived at it ever since. 

[homersapien 11,368]

39 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

He moved the goalposts awhile back. His complaint suddenly became that "liberals" asking for more tests haven't been specifying that they want more good tests. I'm curious where they'll move next.

Like you, my career involved a lot of analytical problem solving in systems, working with smart people. I suppose I have an unfortunate tendency to assume others are expressing a given position in the exact same way I might - which often already assumes the obvious. 

[SocialCircle 570]

3 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

Yeah, in context, that comment made no sense whatsoever.

These is a very well known report on the medicine that is the subject of this thread that was published and then retracted by the New England Medical Journal and the Lancet. I’m extremely surprised the poster in question didn’t immediately know about the reference I made to it. I’m shocked actually. 
 

It was like when the other self proclaimed expert on this subject said there is no proven effective treatment yet for Covid-19.  
 

How sheltered must you be to be an expert and not know about that report or any effective treatment for Covid-19. 

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

This is a qualifier I didn't notice from your earlier posts (from a different thread).

Did you "move the goalpost" by just now adding it, or did I overlook it?

It sounded to me like you were making a general statement of not spending "billions" on testing,  period. You didn't make any such qualifications about how that money should be spent. (I might add I gave you plenty of opportunity to do so considering the gist of my replies.)

My assumption was the "billions" of dollars you objected to spending would be used to expand our capability to conduct fast tests in large numbers. (Ideally to the point where results are known in minutes or hours - like current flu tests - and there would be enough tests available for effective, real time control. )  As we both acknowledge, we are a long way from being there. 

IMO, it's going to take a federally coordinated effort and lots of money (perhaps billions) to develop the testing we really need, neither of which we have started to do.

 

I did not intend to move any goalpost, but I certainly may not have made myself clear. By far, the type of testing we as a country have been doing outside of hospitals is the RNA test that must be sent to a lab to be processed. I would guess that more than 75% of the 4+ million COVID tests have been of this type. I will admit that is a guess and would be happy for you to correct me on it. These are the tests that have very limited value to clinicians in my opinion. 

I admit to interpreting "We need more testing" as meaning that we need more the testing that we currently are using, which would be mostly send-off tests that take 2-10 days to get results AND rapid RNA tests, AND some antibody tests. If "we need more testing" means that we need more rapid testing then I absolutely think that would add value to the tests.

What I have said from the beginning is that we don't need more tests that don't change the plan of treatment.

[Grumps 3,704]

1 hour ago, McLoofus said:

He literally started at "conclusion" and has been trying to figure out how he arrived at it ever since. 

Here's your chance to be a hero! 

Prove me wrong on any of these points and I will never be a bother to this forum again:

1. The predominant testing for COVID-19 that has been done in this country outside of hospital since March has been send-out tests that take 2-10 days to get results. (I will admit that when not otherwise stated I have assumed that more testing has meant more of the testing that we have been already doing.)

2. The billions that have been spent on testing have mostly been for the type of tests in #1.

2. I have never said we do not need better testing.

3. I have never said that we do not need to spend money on better testing.

4. I have never said that we do not need to spend money on developing treatments or vaccines.

You have me figured out! I stayed up all night last night coming up with a way to save face to a bunch of people who have no respect for me whatsover. That's your conclusion!

By the way, I tried a Calabrian pepper yesterday for the first time. You were right! (I just wanted to get that in there before I have to leave.)

[homersapien 11,368]

14 minutes ago, Grumps said:

Here's your chance to be a hero! 

Prove me wrong on any of these points and I will never be a bother to this forum again:

1. The predominant testing for COVID-19 that has been done in this country outside of hospital since March has been send-out tests that take 2-10 days to get results. (I will admit that when not otherwise stated I have assumed that more testing has meant more of the testing that we have been already doing.)

2. The billions that have been spent on testing have mostly been for the type of tests in #1.

2. I have never said we do not need better testing.

3. I have never said that we do not need to spend money on better testing.

4. I have never said that we do not need to spend money on developing treatments or vaccines.

You have me figured out! I stayed up all night last night coming up with a way to save face to a bunch of people who have no respect for me whatsover. That's your conclusion!

By the way, I tried a Calabrian pepper yesterday for the first time. You were right! (I just wanted to get that in there before I have to leave.)

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to see a reference for #2 if you are talking about federal funds (our tax money).

And the reason we are still stuck with the testing you describe in #1, is because - unlike other countries who are doing better than us  - there no coordinated national effort made at the Federal level.  (Trump doesn't consider it "his responsibility".

As for the next couple of points you continued to emphasize your point of not wasting "billions" on (unspecified) testing that "doesn't change behavior".  If you mentioned spending on better testing technology I missed it.  Nor did you mention the slow nature of our current testing is the main thing determining behavior.

[McLoofus 35,182]

13 minutes ago, Grumps said:

2. I have never said we do not need better testing.

3. I have never said that we do not need to spend money on better testing.

Eh, I guess maybe you made one tiny distinction in a flurry of posts that mostly made no such distinction. 

 

Too bad you'd sooner volunteer to just quit than to try to be more intellectually honest.

Glad you enjoyed the chile. 

[Grumps 3,704]

23 minutes ago, homersapien said:

This wasn't addressed to me, but I'd like to see a reference for #2 if you are talking about federal funds (our tax money).

And the reason we are still stuck with the testing you describe in #1, is because - unlike other countries who are doing better than us  - there no coordinated national effort made at the Federal level.  (Trump doesn't consider it "his responsibility".

As for the next couple of points you continued to emphasize your point of not wasting "billions" on (unspecified) testing that "doesn't change behavior".  If you mentioned spending on better testing technology I missed it.  Nor did you mention the slow nature of our current testing is the main thing determining behavior.

I will happily make the same offer to you.

[Grumps 3,704]

14 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Eh, I guess maybe you made one tiny distinction in a flurry of posts that mostly made no such distinction. 

 

Too bad you'd sooner volunteer to just quit than to try to be more intellectually honest.

Glad you enjoyed the chile. 

Either I was intellectually dishonest or you misinterpreted the words that I typed. 

If I am lying intentionally then I don't need to be here. 

If I am being dishonest and don't know it then I also don't need to be here.