restlesssurfer97 said:Do you guys at least agree that massive, widespread testing really ought to be one of the top priorities in this whole fight, regardless of how much the bill actually comes to?
And if you aren't on board with that, what's your reasoning?
I don't know, I’m certainly no expert on this subject. But even if I were, who exactly are we talking about mass-testing? At what cost, and what is the actual payoff? Look at what they're doing in Iceland right now—they are practically screening the entire population because they have the resources to do it and a relatively small population to manage, so they're doing it primarily for scientific reasons. Currently, they’ve tested four times more people per million inhabitants than they have in South Korea. The results? Only 1% (specifically 0.89%) of the general population tested was positive—meaning people without any symptoms or specific indications for testing. That’s barely 48 additional people on top of the 409 who were already known cases. So, what does that actually achieve? Okay, sure, you isolate those individuals. But let’s be real: testing takes time, even with the best technology and the strongest will. A small portion of that remaining 99% might actually be false negatives because they are in the very early stages of incubation. Are you just going to let all those people walk around freely? By then, they’ll start developing symptoms and potentially pick up the virus from people who haven't been tested yet and are acting as asymptomatic spreaders. In the end, you're still left with nothing but general population-wide measures.
It’s not just the Icelanders, either! In a similar study conducted in a specific region of Italy—which happens to be one of the hardest-hit countries in the world right now—they actually saw something even higher, around 3%.
A huge number of people only develop mild symptoms that feel just like a common cold. Should we really be testing everyone who shows up with a sniffle? Let’s face it—the classic cold hasn't gone anywhere, and we're right in the middle of allergy season, which produces practically identical symptoms. Sure, if you tested that entire group, you’d probably find a higher percentage of people positive for COVID-19. That’s true. But at what cost? Attempting that level of mass testing in a place like Iceland over such a short window would create a massive logistical nightmare. And then what? What do you actually do with the results? If they test positive, they go into self-isolation—which is basically just following whatever mandates or general measures are already in place. If they test negative, can you even trust the result? Not really, because they could easily pick up the virus somewhere else since horizontal transmission has already kicked in. So, what’s the plan then? Do you want to test them all over again in ten days once they start coughing harder? You’ll have burned through a mountain of cash to test them once, only to end up testing a huge chunk of them again. And where does that leave us? Back to quarantine, which just means returning to more general restrictions anyway. It feels like a loop!
So, should we be testing close contacts or those further out? Honestly, that’s where you see the biggest red flags for testing needs, and there was definitely a breakdown in how the spread was being identified early on. But let me ask you this: what happens if you test everyone? You'll end up with a mountain of negative results. And even among those who test positive, most will be asymptomatic or just dealing with mild symptoms. They’d end up getting the exact same treatment anyway—forced isolation for at least 14 days, or who knows, maybe being sent to a makeshift recovery ward in the Arena! We simply cannot afford to clog up the hospitals with asymptomatic people or folks who just have a common cold; that would lead to an immediate total collapse of the system. The only thing that might actually get better follow-up is the tracking, but even then, I worry we might be paying for it by failing to identify the truly serious cases.
That’s a fair point, really. Everything has its own set of pros and cons, so you can't just give a simple yes or no answer to this. Sure, plenty of people would jump at the chance to get tested if they had just grabbed a bite to eat on a Sunday afternoon, but we simply have to prioritize certain patients. Even if you claim that cost isn't an issue—and let's be honest, it always is, not just for us—we still run into massive hurdles. We're talking about the sheer strain on humanity, the supply chain issues with testing materials, the logistical nightmare of isolating everyone who shows up for a test, and the absolute burnout our healthcare workers are facing right now. In the end, most people would likely walk away with exactly what they’d get anyway: either nothing at all, or the same general restrictions we're seeing everywhere else.
Right now, even with the relatively strict testing regimen we have in place, our positivity rate is sitting at about 10-11%. And keep in mind, some of those numbers include people who have been tested multiple times. What do you guys think? Is that sample size too small? Are we not testing enough? Or is this actually sufficient?
