I completely agree with you. Hence my end game post. I don't see one without the testing. Our county has only tested 380 out of the over 123,000 people. How can we have a plan? How can we get people back to work? That is why I have said, we can only get back to work when we know who is immune, have a vaccine, etc. All I can do is hunker down, but I feel like we are wasting that sacrifice. Most of the hospitals in our state are not overrun. They are waiting for the tsunami. I don't understand why we couldn't be testing people. But in our state, you almost have to be in the hospital to get tested.
And we're not even tracking those that we *know* have tested positive and recovered, even though they're a potential resource that could help us weather the storm.
Yes, and I will continue to assume everyone is sick until the numbers come down. Even if the hairdresser isn't infected and is tested, how will one know if she doesn't get infected tomorrow by a client, will he/she be tested everyday, not practical at this point.
There are several antibody tests available now that test not for current infection but rather for immunity with high accuracy. People who have a positive immunity test could safely get back to work, take essential positions temporarily, serve as caregivers or community volunteers, etc. America has a strong volunteer culture and I'm sure many people would step in to essential roles in one way or another if they knew they were immune and could do so safely. But we're not using those tests now except in very limited applications, and we don't appear to be aiming for the kind of widespread testing roll out that Germany is using as preparation for a slow reopening of parts of the economy. We're still in a "wait and see" posture.
But we do have an end date; when the hospitals have enough capacity. The point of the restrictions is not to keep people from getting sick (it is, but it isn't) it's so, as you have stated here, the hospitals do not get overwhelmed. Once we reach a point where the hospitals have a comfortable capacity to handle new sick people, then anyone that is not in a high-risk category should be able to venture out without treating everyone they see like they have the plague.
If that's the case, why the lockdowns in places with almost no cases where hospitals are still way below capacity? Why only pursuing expansion of hospital capacity in cities that are already hard hit?
We are absolutely not taking an approach of allowing spread within the limits of our medical system, because we're not willing to tolerate the number of deaths this virus causes even under ideal circumstances (between 1 and 2 million, assuming a fatality rate of 1/2 to 1%). We're going at this with a typically American "zero tolerance" mindset... prevent every death we can, at any cost, with no end game in sight.
Ideas can be dangerous. As an immediate example, I haven't heard much outcry from the "Economy!" folks about the shortages. it is deemphasized in all those posts. I might have some more care about your argument if I thought you were writing your congressperson or complaining about the bungling of the federal response or...... if you watched the CNN special about the ER in NYC.
Well, let me set your mind to rest... I'm doing those things too. I'm a native Detroiter and they've got a higher death rate than NYC right now, even though the medical system is not yet fully overwhelmed, so this isn't some abstract issue that I'm content just to rant online about. But really, there's no discussion to be had online about shortages - I'm sure we're all 100% in agreement that PPE needs to be top priority, and that wouldn't make a very interesting thread.
My congressman was probably sick of hearing from me long before this, because I'm pretty active politically in general, but he's been unusually responsive on this issue. Actually, he just did a phone town hall this afternoon that I was listening to as I'm sitting here scrolling. Unfortunately, he's a political creature and isn't responding directly to questions about testing, supply distribution, etc. but he is at least making it known that he's hearing the concerns and passing along the comments he's receiving to his leadership.
I don't, however, watch television news - no judgment of those who do, I just don't retain or process video content as well as I do the written word, and I'm trying to limit the amount of COVID19 news my anxious 11yo is exposed to - so I didn't catch the special about NY.
