The "trial-and-error" Phase of the Country's re-opening

C'est Moi said:
I don't know why everyone is so hell-bent on "TESTING." Someone can be tested, they are negative for the virus, and in an hour they are exposed and contract the virus. So why the big emphasis on testing? We can't test everyone, every hour so it's a waste in my opinion. This is getting ridiculous and I'm exhausted with the hysteria.
Click to expand...

Without accurate testing we cannot get a realistic understanding of several things:

1. How contagious is the virus
2. How many people have the virus without having any symptoms
3. What the actual chances of dying from the virus are
4. Insights into how the virus is spreading

There also need to be two accurate types of testing, do you currently have the virus and have you had the virus and have developed antibodies to the virus.

You are correct that a person can get a test, test negative and be infected 10 minutes after they tested negative, but even that would give us an idea of how contagious the disease is depending on what they did between the time they were tested negative and then were later tested as positive.

Although their isolation might have more to do with their success than testing Iceland has been able to keep the disease to minimal impact with widespread testing. I haven't read much more about the efforts to contain the virus in Iceland but I think they've been successful.
 
Included in assessments during the trial and error phase and the relaxing of the lockdown, are considerations such as the use of masks or face coverings, and how far people must remain apart, as we know(?).

There are of course people in other countries, (and some people from those countries residing here), where half their population is used to wearing face coverings, and considerable social distancing exists, even between husbands and their wives on the streets.

Recognising where the power lies in most Western countries the husband would have to walk at a considerable distance behind their wife, should we wish to reduce any associated risks of spreading the virus caused by couples walking together on sidewalks, or pavements, meeting others people who they are unable to pass at the recommended distance apart, in the "trial and error" phase! :rolleyes::unsure::whistle: .

BTW I think the previous post to this one and my own post here, fit together really well, a bit like "the ying and yang" of the Coronavirus crisis, (him putting forward sensible ideas, whilst I provide the corresponding none sense!). 🤧🤒 .
 
Last edited:
Camper6 said:
Well testing makes sense to me. First of all you want to know if you yourself are testing negative.
Then all the negatives can go out to work and associate with each other.
Many negatives make a positive.
What is the point of sending anyone out to work if they are testing positive?
Click to expand...

I agree that there is a point to testing, obviously some getting tested, maybe regularly tested makes sense too, although with widespread testing as now envisaged you have to factor in the risks going to and forth to testing centres, then having someone swab or scrape your mouth, or whatever test is required cannot be done under social distancing, and those doing the testing become potential vectors too.
 
grahamg said:
I agree that there is a point to testing, obviously some getting tested, maybe regularly tested makes sense too, although with widespread testing as now envisaged you have to factor in the risks going to and forth to testing centres, then having someone swab or scrape your mouth, or whatever test is required cannot be done under social distancing, and those doing the testing become potential vectors too.
Click to expand...
Our city is doing drive in testing. You sit in your car. There's a risk in everything but you have to find out. They can't even keep it out of the White House and then talk about reopening the country?
 
MarciKS said:
And will you still feel this way once you've been infected and realize you may have infected even more and you're in the hospital not knowing if you're gonna live? I'm just asking.
Click to expand...
Whoa, there cowgirl! Ain't none of that happened yet. You got a crystal ball? We've been very careful. I've made masks for other people. I wash my hands. For you to say something like that is just stupid. You're hysterical. Go away.
 
Rosemarie said:
I think the danger is that people may think the risk has lessened once the 'lockdown' is eased. It's important to continue with caution, keeping our distance, and paying extra attention to cleanliness.
Click to expand...
logo.jpeg...I think it is a bad thing, cases have increased faster than before...
 
If [some] folks feel they no longer have a life [for any reason] and are only maintaining a mere existence ....then they are very likely willing to [roll the dice] and get back to having a life , a life that fulfills .

However, if a person or persons are willing to cower in fear ?.... for as long as they can, then that is what they are going to do.

But for one or the other to impose their needs on the other is IMO.... just wrong. We all must live life to the fullest .... or to at least live it to satisfaction that only we know for ourselves.

As for the [nation] ? Make no mistake ... it would IMO be a mistake to keep the country "closed" any longer. Again, America was built on her industrial might .... and has made her reputation & earned her respect on that might ..... we cannot let it slip away.
 
Sunny said:
Today's paper already reported a surge in new cases as soon as several states reopened.
Click to expand...
Since it takes up to 14 days for people to show symptoms, I'd think it's a little too early to say definitively that any upsurge in cases is caused by reopening. Certainly could be, but I think we'd need to wait a couple weeks to get a good idea. But it seems inevitable that there will be more cases.
 
Last edited:
Camper6 said:
Well testing makes sense to me. First of all you want to know if you yourself are testing negative.
Then all the negatives can go out to work and associate with each other.
Many negatives make a positive.
What is the point of sending anyone out to work if they are testing positive?
Click to expand...

As someone else already pointed out, so you're tested and come up negative. The next day you go out and get exposed. You now have the virus but you tested negative just a day ago. Are you going to get tested every day? Unless they came up with a home 1 minute test like a blood sugar test where you can test yourself everyday at home, I don't see how it can work. But I've been wrong before.
 
asp3 said:
You are correct that a person can get a test, test negative and be infected 10 minutes after they tested negative, but even that would give us an idea of how contagious the disease is depending on what they did between the time they were tested negative and then were later tested as positive.
But again, how often are you going to be tested? That person that got tested and is negative then gets the virus 10 minutes later is going to be spreading it until they're tested again. Are we going to test everybody every day? If they have no, or mildsymptoms \, they'll likely not get tested again.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Rosemarie said:
I think the danger is that people may think the risk has lessened once the 'lockdown' is eased. It's important to continue with caution, keeping our distance, and paying extra attention to cleanliness.
Click to expand...
Agree. I've heard this a couple times now, "As soon as they open things up I'm going to get my hair done, whatever" As if because they're slowly opening various areas they're now totally safe, because the govt says so. Makes me think of this:
 

Attachments

  • nvxMQucIuNHhsSJRPvdu.png.jpg
    nvxMQucIuNHhsSJRPvdu.png.jpg
    15.4 KB · Views: 2
However, if a person or persons are willing to cower in fear ?.... for as long as they can, then that is what they are going to do.

But for one or the other to impose their needs on the other is IMO.... just wrong. We all must live life to the fullest .... or to at least live it to satisfaction that only we know for ourselves.
Click to expand...

Wow, rpg, that one has gotta take the cake! "Cower in fear?" Here's a news flash for you: there are times that reacting with a bit of fear is the healthy, intelligent thing to do. Have you actually read any of the descriptions of this horrific illness, and what it does to the human body? Being afraid of it is normal; swaggering around like a character in an old western movie is not.

That doesn't mean you have to sit at home, shaking in your cowboy boots. It means you do your best to avoid getting it, and to avoid spreading it to others, just in case you happen to be carrying the virus. "The satisfaction that only we know for ourselves" is the most uncaring, selfish philosophy of life that I have ever seen. And how twisted, to put momentary economic concerns, and election outcomes, ahead of human life.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top