More Testing -Somone Help Me

[TNT.sixpack]

Was watching the news this morning -FOX and CNN. All I hear from everyone is the need for more testing. What am I missing? I'm being sincere. Wife is a nurse and we had this argument this morning. Everyone who is sick enough to go the hospital, gets a test. Those who are asymptomatic can get a test. What will more testing do? Wife says it will identify those who are asymptomatic, but still positive, so we can quarantine them. Ok. Well, if they were positive at test time, then it stands to reason they've infected God knows how many people before they took the test. Then there's tracing, etc.... and I think we're chasing our tails with tracing. And what about all those who test negative? Are they good to go? Just because I test negative now, doesn't mean I won't be exposed to it later. So do I get tested weekly? I'm just trying to understand this rationale of "we need more testing" before we can return to some normalcy and open things back up. I just wonder if again, we're misguided much like the whole quarantine thing for those of who don't have underlying comorbitities. The best quarantine efforts in the nation is our own prison system and COVID seems to be infecting them at a pretty good rate too. You can't control quarantine much better than those folks do it. I don't mind doing my part, but admittedly I'm a "why" guy. If you can make it make sense to me, I'm on board. But testing people just to prove their negative, makes little sense to me. And my wife is tired of arguing with me about it.

 

[Xenomorph]

What are your wife's views on Women's, Gender and Sexuality?

/asking the real questions.

 

[missouridawg]

Was watching the news this morning -FOX and CNN. All I hear from everyone is the need for more testing. What am I missing? I'm being sincere. Wife is a nurse and we had this argument this morning. Everyone who is sick enough to go the hospital, gets a test. Those who are asymptomatic can get a test. What will more testing do? Wife says it will identify those who are asymptomatic, but still positive, so we can quarantine them. Ok. Well, if they were positive at test time, then it stands to reason they've infected God knows how many people before they took the test. Then there's tracing, etc.... and I think we're chasing our tails with tracing. And what about all those who test negative? Are they good to go? Just because I test negative now, doesn't mean I won't be exposed to it later. So do I get tested weekly? I'm just trying to understand this rationale of "we need more testing" before we can return to some normalcy and open things back up. I just wonder if again, we're misguided much like the whole quarantine thing for those of who don't have underlying comorbitities. The best quarantine efforts in the nation is our own prison system and COVID seems to be infecting them at a pretty good rate too. You can't control quarantine much better than those folks do it. I don't mind doing my part, but admittedly I'm a "why" guy. If you can make it make sense to me, I'm on board. But testing people just to prove their negative, makes little sense to me. And my wife is tired of arguing with me about it.

A fact is better than a guess. More testing means you know a data point and aren’t shooting from the hip like a lot of states have done with their projections.

I think the antibody testing is the key piece to allow us to accelerate the opening of the economy back. My wife got tested this week and was negative, meaning me and my two sons are both negative as well, as we’ve been couped up together for 6 weeks now.

Some of the things some politicians and businesses are discussing right now is downright scary. California announced today they are closing 100% of the beaches, even though numbers are improving there. My wife’s work has all but committed to working from home the majority of the time for the rest of 2020 already.

We need data points to make decisions and testing is how we get those data points.

 

[TNT.sixpack]

A fact is better than a guess. More testing means you know a data point and aren’t shooting from the hip like a lot of states have done with their projections.

I think the antibody testing is the key piece to allow us to accelerate the opening of the economy back. My wife got tested this week and was negative, meaning me and my two sons are both negative as well, as we’ve been couped up together for 6 weeks now.

Some of the things some politicians and businesses are discussing right now is downright scary. California announced today they are closing 100% of the beaches, even though numbers are improving there. My wife’s work has all but committed to working from home the majority of the time for the rest of 2020 already.

We need data points to make decisions and testing is how we get those data points.

Ok, so you and your wife and 2 sons are negative and you know that. What next? Do you need to get retested at some point later?

 

[engie]

Ok, so you and your wife and 2 sons are negative and you know that. What next? Do you need to get retested at some point later?

To eradicate it by testing, you’d basically have to test everybody everyday. Then take all liberty from the infected to be sure the guy who tests positive but feels great still isn’t out and about. It’s incredibly infeasible.

Protect the weak with constantly testing their exposures and let the rest of us protect the herd by beating this. Barring a vaccine within months, It’s the only logical path forward.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

Need more testing or pass anti litigation laws for businesses. If I have a big public company and I bring everyone back to the office I will have to guarantee their safety or the lawsuit is coming... Nobody even has to get sick. They just have to feel a threat and will lawyer up. So many businesses are going to stay closed longer than necessary.

If I can test every employee everyday maybe I can win the lawsuit, otherwise the lawyers and sue my way to millions crowd are going to destroy the world.

McConnell is pushing for businesses to have liability protection from Covid19 cases in the next stimmy bill. This really needs to happen.

 

[Hubcitydog]

.

 

[missouridawg]

Ok, so you and your wife and 2 sons are negative and you know that. What next? Do you need to get retested at some point later?

Yes. But we need this data for a large number of the population. You can use identify clusters/hotspots and target policy to helping those areas.

The idea that Manhattan and my “population 900” hometown in Missouri should be following the same quarantining protocols is asinine.

I live in Houston, TX now and today I believe we crossed the 100 death mark in the county here. The fourth largest city in America is at a standstill because of this and it just doesn’t make much sense to treat us like NYC, who has 20 times more deaths than us. But without knowing a more thorough data point on infections and antibodies... policy makers are going err on the side of caution so they have a chance to get re-elected in the next cycle.

 

[Car Ramrod.sixpack]

Quarantining the infected is truly the only way to limit the spread of the virus. The problem with this is that the testing capacity is not available to test the entire population and determine who to quarantine and who can continue with their life. If you could test large swaths of the population we could isolate the infected and flatten the curve fairly quick. Without this testing capacity you have to assume everyone is infected because you can transmit the virus being asymptomatic. Currently the only way to get tested is if you have symptoms and what if you never had any symptoms and never knew you had the virus.

I truly believe we will learn that a higher percentage of the population was infected and did not have any symptoms yet were contagious during this time. For example I had a rough bout with the virus but yet my wife never had any symptoms. If the experts are correct, that you can be contagious for up to 2 weeks before you show symptoms, there is absolutely no possible way she didn't contract the virus. I contracted the virus from my boss in a small office of less than 5 people. I can guarantee that I had closer interactions with my wife than any coworker (yea insert a joke here) before my or his symptoms started. She tried to get tested and because she didn't have any symptoms she was denied testing but was required to follow the same state issued quarantine as I was. With that being said either they are wrong about the being contagious before you show any symptoms or you can contract the virus with no symptoms and be contagious. Talking with my doctor he has theory that there are genetic triggers that affects how severe this virus affects individuals. He also has the same opinion that some people will contract the virus and never have a fever, cough or sore throat. We will never know until widespread or at home testing for either the virus or antibodies are available.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I suppose I don't see any way for expanded testing and tracing to be practically achievable. If I test negative this AM, should I be tested again tomorrow? In a week? I can get infected at anytime. We need enough tests to test anyone who has knowingly been exposed and anyone with symptoms. Otherwise, we just need move into be careful mode and move on.

 

[Willow Grove Dawg]

I cannot wait for the CNN/MSNBC/SJW narrative opposed to Business Liability Protection because they will have to attempt to protect the Ambulance Chasers.

 

[Drebin]

I cannot wait for the CNN/MSNBC/SJW narrative opposed to Business Liability Protection because they will have to attempt to protect the Ambulance Chasers.

It's out there and it's ridiculous. Trump signs an executive order designating meat and poultry "essential materials" and delegating authority to the department of agriculture to prioritize federal supply and the media spins it as "Trump is forcing meat packing plants to open," which is not in the order. Then, Trump signs executive orders protecting essential businesses from litigation, otherwise it will be open season on business in this country, and the media spins it as "Trump is putting dollars above lives." Keep in mind that this isn't China (yet).....we aren't forcing people at gunpoint to go to their jobs.

It's just amazing to watch the media. We need ventilators! (we have them) We need tests! (we have them) We need MORE tests! (we have them) We need even MORE tests! (we have them) We need antibody tests! (we have them) Antibody tests aren't reliable! (well, I guess we're screwed)

Nobody, including Trump has been perfect through this fiasco, but it would be nice to get some honest, fact-based reporting in this country instead of the back seat driving we get from the media every day. It's exhausting.

 

[DesotoCountyDawg]

It’s the gotcha news media. Got to find something to catch somebody doing something “the wrong way”.

 

[mstateglfr]

Need more testing or pass anti litigation laws for businesses. If I have a big public company and I bring everyone back to the office I will have to guarantee their safety or the lawsuit is coming... Nobody even has to get sick. They just have to feel a threat and will lawyer up. So many businesses are going to stay closed longer than necessary.

If I can test every employee everyday maybe I can win the lawsuit, otherwise the lawyers and sue my way to millions crowd are going to destroy the world.

McConnell is pushing for businesses to have liability protection from Covid19 cases in the next stimmy bill. This really needs to happen.

This narrative has intrigued me since the start of Covid crisis. Its what people say when discussing schools opening, when discussing office buildings opening, and when discussing arenas opening(even though its optional to attend events).
The narrative is- we are concerned we will be sued when someone is sick.

Its a curious narrative to push though, since the burden is on the individual to prove they were sick due to the place they are suing. In order to do that, they must show that literally everywhere else they have been is free of the virus, which is basically impossible.

I get that many hate lawyers and use them as a symbol for greed and so many things that are wrong with our society, but its just sad to see people predict lawyers will 'destroy the world' by suing over catching Covid.

Claiming one must test every employee every day in order to protect themselves is absurd. Its basically a scare tactic based on some extreme hypothetical that has no basis.

Flame away.

 

[Drebin]

This narrative has intrigued me since the start of Covid crisis. Its what people say when discussing schools opening, when discussing office buildings opening, and when discussing arenas opening(even though its optional to attend events).
The narrative is- we are concerned we will be sued when someone is sick.

Its a curious narrative to push though, since the burden is on the individual to prove they were sick due to the place they are suing. In order to do that, they must show that literally everywhere else they have been is free of the virus, which is basically impossible.

I get that many hate lawyers and use them as a symbol for greed and so many things that are wrong with our society, but its just sad to see people predict lawyers will 'destroy the world' by suing over catching Covid.

Claiming one must test every employee every day in order to protect themselves is absurd. Its basically a scare tactic based on some extreme hypothetical that has no basis.

Flame away.

It's not just about whether people win those lawsuits or not. Business owners have to pay to defend themselves whether they win or lose. In times like these, that's an additional burden that can endanger business survival.

 

[ronpolk]

Was watching the news this morning -FOX and CNN. All I hear from everyone is the need for more testing. What am I missing? I'm being sincere. Wife is a nurse and we had this argument this morning. Everyone who is sick enough to go the hospital, gets a test. Those who are asymptomatic can get a test. What will more testing do? Wife says it will identify those who are asymptomatic, but still positive, so we can quarantine them. Ok. Well, if they were positive at test time, then it stands to reason they've infected God knows how many people before they took the test. Then there's tracing, etc.... and I think we're chasing our tails with tracing. And what about all those who test negative? Are they good to go? Just because I test negative now, doesn't mean I won't be exposed to it later. So do I get tested weekly? I'm just trying to understand this rationale of "we need more testing" before we can return to some normalcy and open things back up. I just wonder if again, we're misguided much like the whole quarantine thing for those of who don't have underlying comorbitities. The best quarantine efforts in the nation is our own prison system and COVID seems to be infecting them at a pretty good rate too. You can't control quarantine much better than those folks do it. I don't mind doing my part, but admittedly I'm a "why" guy. If you can make it make sense to me, I'm on board. But testing people just to prove their negative, makes little sense to me. And my wife is tired of arguing with me about it.

I’ve wondered this myself. Seems testing only can help a point in time. Just cause I was positive today does not mean I’ll be positive tomorrow. I think people want testing for stats and that’s it.

 

[paindonthurt_]

Well stated sir.

 

[Maroon Eagle]

Yep. Knowing the data points is also the big reason why I think the health folks are actually in charge here.

Doctors do not like to deal in guesswork. They want to go through the different scenarios first.

 

[Drebin]

Well stated sir.

Thank you sir.

 

[TheStateUofMS]

I'm in the same boat as you my friend. Anti body testing is a better route to go with mass testing.

In general, if you're not in an at risk group, this disease isn't a death sentence. Go live your life and practice proper hygiene and common sense. The gov't can better target at risk folks with stimulus.

 

[ckDOG]

Okay with removing liability only if the government assumes it.

Need more testing or pass anti litigation laws for businesses. If I have a big public company and I bring everyone back to the office I will have to guarantee their safety or the lawsuit is coming... Nobody even has to get sick. They just have to feel a threat and will lawyer up. So many businesses are going to stay closed longer than necessary.

If I can test every employee everyday maybe I can win the lawsuit, otherwise the lawyers and sue my way to millions crowd are going to destroy the world.

McConnell is pushing for businesses to have liability protection from Covid19 cases in the next stimmy bill. This really needs to happen.

I don't want paydays for ambulance chasers. I also don't want my family to go uncompensated if my employer forces me to come to work and I get get the virus there and die from it. I doubt any of you would be comfortable with taking an unhedged risk like that.

Is that the suggestion?

 

[The Peeper]

This is exactly my view, at what point do you stop testing? If you are trying to identify asymptomatic people, you will have to keep testing everybody out there repeatedly. If they tested negative 2 weeks ago, who's to say they haven't gotten it in the past week and have no symptoms now? Tested negative again today, well, when are you going to test them again? It makes no sense to me to just keep testing everybody

 

[The Peeper]

I'm done w/ "watching" any news, no way I'll turn on the tv to watch it again, ever. I will selectively read articles to get some info but I'm done w/ FOX, CNN, ABC, CBS, all of them. I'll get my weather w/ an app, and my sports from selected outlets but as far as sitting down and watching the news (local, national, or world) I'm done and hope they ALL go out of business.

 

[Jeffreauxdawg]

I agree. I think there is a balance. It goes back to the old tort reform laws in medical malpractice. If a company is being negligent, forcing you to come in if you could reasonably perform your work at home, or anything else... You or your family should have recourse. The same as a patient who wakes up with the surgeons wrist watch inside him should be able to sue....But if you die during a quadruple bypass, sometimes it just goes bad for you.

But if reasonable precautions are being taken, life is full of risks. At some point in the future, frivolous lawsuits will be coming. Even if the cases can't be won, many settle out of court to avoid PR exposure and legal costs.

There needs to be some protections or it's going to be a problem.

 

[Drebin]

I don't want paydays for ambulance chasers. I also don't want my family to go uncompensated if my employer forces me to come to work and I get get the virus there and die from it. I doubt any of you would be comfortable with taking an unhedged risk like that.

Is that the suggestion?

It doesn't protect the employer from negligence. There are still CDC guidelines to follow and employers should be mindful of that.

 

[TNT.sixpack]

It's not just about whether people win those lawsuits or not. Business owners have to pay to defend themselves whether they win or lose. In times like these, that's an additional burden that can endanger business survival.

This is correct. Often an attorney knows he/she has a weak case when the suit is filed. But when a company (especially a national chain with enormous exposure) is hit with a class action suit, they have 2 choices......defend it til the end with multiple high priced attorneys working across the country, or decide how much they should offer to make the suit go away. If the cost of defense is $1M+ with an unknown outcome at trial or an $800K offer today to resolve it, they'll often pay the $800K to resolve it. Multiple by that times 5 defendants, and the plaintiff attorney has a big payday. I used to make a living having to make this decision every day on the defense side of this equation.

 

[mstateglfr]

It's not just about whether people win those lawsuits or not. Business owners have to pay to defend themselves whether they win or lose. In times like these, that's an additional burden that can endanger business survival.

Oh I get how this all works, I just disagree with the prediction that the world will be destroyed because some lawsuits may be filed.

Since so many on the right continually liken this to the flu, why hasnt the world been destroyed because of suits over lost wages or death due to seasonal flu?

The burden to prove its due to a business or office is so difficult, I simply don't think this would destroy the world because of too many lawsuits.
Sure, there may be some. No, that won't mean the world is destroyed, especially after the suits don't make it.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I don't want paydays for ambulance chasers. I also don't want my family to go uncompensated if my employer forces me to come to work and I get get the virus there and die from it. I doubt any of you would be comfortable with taking an unhedged risk like that.

Is that the suggestion?

Your employer cannot force you to go to work. You have a choice. You can decide that you don't like your employer's policies and quit at any time. If your employer re-opens they are simply offering their employees an opportunity to work and earn a living. Same as always. That's why I can't understand how an employer would have any liability.

 

[ckDOG]

Your employer cannot force you to go to work. You have a choice. You can decide that you don't like your employer's policies and quit at any time. If your employer re-opens they are simply offering their employees an opportunity to work and earn a living. Same as always. That's why I can't understand how an employer would have any liability.

Outside or healthcare, how many of these essential jobs listed "must be exposed to novel virus with no known vaccine or treatment". That's a helluva job change.

If they intend to compensate additionally or insure for that added risk, I'm with you. Otherwise, they are getting folks to work at prior market rates due to a fear of retaliation over avoiding something that isn't a reasonable hazard for work in that job. We really aren't in a state of free markets where essential service employers can hire and fire from a pool of employees. I suspect if an employer were to reset and hire replacements who are okay with the added risk, it would command a significantly hire wage.

 

[RocketDawg]

This narrative has intrigued me since the start of Covid crisis. Its what people say when discussing schools opening, when discussing office buildings opening, and when discussing arenas opening(even though its optional to attend events).
The narrative is- we are concerned we will be sued when someone is sick.

Its a curious narrative to push though, since the burden is on the individual to prove they were sick due to the place they are suing. In order to do that, they must show that literally everywhere else they have been is free of the virus, which is basically impossible.

I get that many hate lawyers and use them as a symbol for greed and so many things that are wrong with our society, but its just sad to see people predict lawyers will 'destroy the world' by suing over catching Covid.

Claiming one must test every employee every day in order to protect themselves is absurd. Its basically a scare tactic based on some extreme hypothetical that has no basis.

Flame away.

I don't think most people hate all lawyers, they just hate the tactics of the so-called "ambulance chasers" who prey on mostly the less educated. An example is Alexander Shunarah. I put them in the same category as "payday loans" - both are predatory. Basically, any lawyer who feels the need to advertise fits the unethical category, and really give the competent ones a bad name.

 

[RocketDawg]

I don't want paydays for ambulance chasers. I also don't want my family to go uncompensated if my employer forces me to come to work and I get get the virus there and die from it. I doubt any of you would be comfortable with taking an unhedged risk like that.

Is that the suggestion?

Nobody's going to force anyone to go back to work. Can always quit or get another job.

 

[Drebin]

Oh I get how this all works, I just disagree with the prediction that the world will be destroyed because some lawsuits may be filed.

Since so many on the right continually liken this to the flu, why hasnt the world been destroyed because of suits over lost wages or death due to seasonal flu?

The burden to prove its due to a business or office is so difficult, I simply don't think this would destroy the world because of too many lawsuits.
Sure, there may be some. No, that won't mean the world is destroyed, especially after the suits don't make it.

Lawsuits over the flu aren't prevalent because we've never had a stay at home order issued like what we're seeing here.

And aGAIN, an ambulance chaser doesn't need burden of proof to pursue litigation. His goal in most cases is to get a quick payday through settlement. He has nothing to lose, but the business has to pay to fight the case, or to settle the case, and that is a cost that the business will have to pay whether the suit is frivolous or not.

This isn't a right vs. left issue. This is a right vs. wrong issue.

 

[SheltonChoked]

This is exactly my view, at what point do you stop testing? If you are trying to identify asymptomatic people, you will have to keep testing everybody out there repeatedly. If they tested negative 2 weeks ago, who's to say they haven't gotten it in the past week and have no symptoms now? Tested negative again today, well, when are you going to test them again? It makes no sense to me to just keep testing everybody

Everyone seems to ignore the Traceing part of testing.

Here is how it happens.

COVID Test.

Results:

Negative. Go out. Wear a mask. Keep 6 ft away. Be Careful.

POSITIVE. ISOLATE until symptoms go away for 7 days, 2 negative tests, or 4 weeks. You tell them EVERYONE you have been near for more than 5 minutes for the last 2 weeks. Those people get tested (see above)

Antibody test.

Positive. Great. Go about your life.

Negative. Go out. Wear a mask. Keep 6 ft away. Be Careful.

But without testing, you have to assume everyone has the virus and is asymptomatic.

Testing is THE KEY.

This is promising, but similar type tests have a 15% false negative rate, but we can make Millions a day and it only takes 5-15 minutes. (same tech as a pregnancy test)
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/health/coronavirus-saliva-spit-tests.html


But to summarize, If you wear a mask, and social distance, You don't have to be tested everyday. If you go out and act like its 2019, then yeah. But act like you understand what germs are, that everyone else is infected, and that it will kill your family. Then we will be ok.

 

[ckDOG]

LOL. 30 million people just filed for unemployment

Nobody's going to force anyone to go back to work. Can always quit or get another job.

We are in a depression caused by government mandates. Employers lucky enough to be allowed to operate by the government have a massive upper hand in how they treat/compensate employees. This is not time to preach free market principles. There simply isn't a free market. If the government wants to distort everything for public health, they need to be on the hook for compensating the people hurt by the same damn thing they are trying to protect people from in the first place.

We can't ask some people to not work to avoid some risk and then say "oops sorry" when we ask others to work amongst the very same risk.

 

[Drebin]

We are in a depression caused by government mandates. Employers lucky enough to be allowed to operate by the government have a massive upper hand in how they treat/compensate employees. This is not time to preach free market principles. There simply isn't a free market. If the government wants to distort everything for public health, they need to be on the hook for compensating the people hurt by the same damn thing they are trying to protect people from in the first place.

We can't ask some people to not work to avoid some risk and then say "oops sorry" when we ask others to work amongst the very same risk.

I doubt that this post ages well.

 

[ckDOG]

Feel free to explain how this is a normal economy

I doubt that this post ages well.

Not completely jacked up by the government and why that should give the lucky essential asset owners (defined by government, not markets) to do what they want.

Most people want to work, not be on the dole. When your employer says "come back to work and getchu some of this virus, take your same pay, or I'll find your replacement", most folks are going to say "what time to I show up?" That's great, but you (TBD on who you is - but it can't be both the business owner and the government) can't **** on that person if they get sick.

 

[goodknight]

Contrary to a lot of public opinion and statements from various people testing is NOT readily available. I live in an area with roughly 600k people and the major hospital here is limited to 60 test per day and you must be showing strong symptoms. Have to have urgent but non-emergency surgery soon and getting approvals and testing has been a nightmare for a non-coved person.

 

[Drebin]

Not completely jacked up by the government and why that should give the lucky essential asset owners (defined by government, not markets) to do what they want.

Most people want to work, not be on the dole. When your employer says "come back to work and getchu some of this virus, take your same pay, or I'll find your replacement", most folks are going to say "what time to I show up?" That's great, but you (TBD on who you is - but it can't be both the business owner and the government) can't **** on that person if they get sick.

It's not a normal economy at this moment, no. And it will be slower to return than we'd all like. But it will return, and with a vengeance. This economy was practically at full employment two months ago.

 

[ckDOG]

It's not a normal economy at this moment, no. And it will be slower to return than we'd all like. But it will return, and with a vengeance. This economy was practically at full employment two months ago.

Of course. It will rebound. Hopefully in a good U shape after we get go back wide open after serological tests+treatment+vaccine give us the green light. Or hell, maybe GA proves we can open it up in a few weeks if they have positive results. Still don't see how this is a time that should allow an upper hand on employees without making them right if they are brave enough to work with this damn thing going around. Somewhere there's a balance bt being decent to workers and avoiding an ambulance chasing free-for-all.

 

[Drebin]

Of course. It will rebound. Hopefully in a good U shape after we get go back wide open after serological tests+treatment+vaccine give us the green light. Or hell, maybe GA proves we can open it up in a few weeks if they have positive results. Still don't see how this is a time that should allow an upper hand on employees without making them right if they are brave enough to work with this damn thing going around. Somewhere there's a balance bt being decent to workers and avoiding an ambulance chasing free-for-all.

There has to be a balance. Workers need jobs, and most workers should want to do their part to chip in as we all get through this....that's the American way after all. Employers must do their part to protect them as much as possible by following CDC guidelines and providing protective equipment if needed. If an employer is negligently putting an employee in harm's way, litigation can be an option. But if we start allowing workers to sue companies just because they had to work during a pandemic and got sick, that becomes a very slippery slope. We are way too over-litigated as it is in this country.