AOL: Rapid testing could 'drive the epidemic toward extinction'

[sprinkleeninow]

https://www.aol.com/news/rapid-testing-could-drive-epidemic-164845264.html

[mr_lebowski]

1. It would be a great thing, but getting it in place everywhere it's needed would cost a fortune

And probably take a good while to produce the tests and distribute them widely.

[sprinkleeninow]

4. I'll take any glimmer of positivity, a tiny beam of light shining through the crack.

I wail daily/nightly for some rescuing/relief from this horrendous thing that has come against us. Mainly the virus, then the repub damage.

[FM123]

2. Yep.

“if we could have 10 to 20 million of these tests every single day across all of America, that would be enough to stop the outbreaks across the United States” in just a few weeks’ time"

[soothsayer]

3. IF you could get reliable rapid tests

Right now the Abbott one the WH uses is only right 50%-60% of the time.

You see what that leads to.

[Klaralven]

5. Tests are useless without contact tracing and quarantines

If a person who tests positive goes about their business normally, the test has no effect.

Contact tracing is needed to identify those who they have been in close contact with in the days before the positive test so that the contacts can be isolated and tested over a few day until they have two negative tests.

[global1]

6. If I Am Understanding This Right - Rapid Testing Would Allow People To Know Almost Immediately....

that they are positive to the virus so that they can isolate/quarantine themselves from others and stop the spread. The more people that take themselves out of circulation - the less chance of the virus to spread to others. Right?

The problem is that these rapid self-administered tests are not readily available. They have to be used in mass (large numbers of people need to self administer) and - they are expensive to make available to the numbers of people that are needed to make this plan work.

Just thinking out loud:

Now wouldn't the same goal be accomplished if a nationwide shut-down would be instituted requiring all people to isolate/quarantine for a period of time. Eliminate the need for these tests. Which in turn would eliminate the cost associated with making these tests available to everyone?

Essentially if we had a nationwide shut-down wouldn't we be starving the virus. Not providing the virus - us/human beings - as its host?

With us as hosts don't we only perpetuate the virus (feed the virus) and continue its spread as we continue to think we could get back to normal and open up our stores, bars, gyms, beauty salons, barber shops, theaters, hotels, airports, etc.?

Am I missing something here? Help me understand if I am misunderstanding this.

[Pobeka]

8. You basically got it right IMHO. Essential services only (food, healthcare) n/t.

[Hav]

9. I think you are right, in theory if everyone acted responsibly

The first shutdowns in multiple countries really helped to get the number of new infections more or less under control. I think the European countries were on a good path but maybe reopened too fast, the US definitely did it too early.

[Pobeka]

7. Test AND guaranteed job protectioni plus income during quarantine.

I know of individuals (related) who tested positive and continued to work, wouldn't risk losing income or gettting fired.

Given how economically on the ropes so many people are, I think this could be enough people to keep spreading it while we have a false sense of security that infected individuals are staying in quarantine.