QUESTION: Has ANYONE proposed what adequate testing is to look like on city, county & state level?

[uponit7771]

QUESTION: Has ANYONE proffered what adequate testing is to look like on city, county & state level?

This isn't the science worlds first rodeo so I'm thinking someone has come up with something to indicate how we should be testing going forward on the small and large areas of populous.

There's a doctor on MSNBC that proposed a week ago to do 1% per week that sounds reasonable to be able to test cities, counties and states like that weekly.

The Kremlin KKKlan wont tell America fully what an adequate testing regime would look like. The last I heard was what their testing capacity was the brunt of how they answered questions.

You'd think the country that put a man on the moon would know to communicate how many people need to be tested and how many times etc.

Thx for any input

[WhiskeyGrinder]

1. Gov. Walz of Minnesota has called for testing 5,000 Minnesotans a day before he considers

easing up on the shelter at home. OTOH, he also just signed an executive order allowing golf courses to be open, so. Things change by the day.

[Igel]

2. Needs-based.

People have been trying to say that Texas must be wildly underreporting deaths. Even, apparently, in counties that are Democratic-controlled (because Texan Democrats are apparently as evil as Texan (R), I guess). Which is where most of the cases/deaths are.

So track hospitalizations. You see that deaths are about 1/4 to 1/5 of hospitalizations (except in a few odd cases, like HI and Utah, I think it was--but given low hospitalization rates it's likely that doctors were simply very cautious and hospitalized people that probably didn't need it), both in NY, NJ, NC, NE, and TX.

People refer to Taiwan and S. Korea. Look at how they did it. A person has qualifying symptoms. You test them. Negative for COVID? Toodle on. Positive? List your contacts for the last week; where have you been, what did you do? Go in, test all those people. Anybody tests positive? List your contacts since running into Mr. Infection--where have you been, what did you do. Test all those people.

If you have five infected people this week you may need to test 200. If you have 5000 you may need to test 200,000. If you have 50,000 you may need to test 2,000,000. Until you know what you need to test, you don't know what "adequate" could mean. In fact, you might way to look at the test resources you have and gauge when to start using contact tracing instead of lockdown to control things. There are 50,000 cases this week? Hell, no way to contact trace for all those people, so keep on with the lockdown until the hospitalization rate drops and you can test all those with symptoms.

[uponit7771]

5. Makes a lot of sense, infection rate should be a trigger first

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

3. Look at the numbers for countries that have done extensive testing

vs. those that have not. https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ The countries that have tested the largest percentages of their populations tend to be the ones showing the slowest increases in cases.

[uponit7771]

6. +1, I think you were going to have to do ongoing testing to keep safe ..

... in Trump's open America

[essaynnc]

4. Wow, that has to be ...

Seriously, one of most intelligent, timely questions ever asked.

South Korea has figured it out, by lots of testing. The US just figures that will open it up and see what happens??? I've never heard anyone say at this level it'll be safe.

[Hoyt]

7. Until we have highly accurate rapid tests, testing is only going to help a bit. But, "bit" is better

than nothing, I suppose.

[uponit7771]

8. Right, the person who gets people a pee test for CV19 will get a Noble Prize

[uponit7771]

10. Hmmmm, what would be "rapid" pregnancy test rapid? or hours? tia ... hmmm, why aren't

... we there yet?

[Ford_Prefect]

9. 'You're gonna need a bigger boat.'...