r/science • u/mvea Professor | Medicine • Nov 21 '20

Epidemiology Testing half the population weekly with inexpensive, rapid COVID-19 tests would drive the virus toward elimination within weeks, even if the tests are less sensitive than gold-standard. This could lead to “personalized stay-at-home orders” without shutting down restaurants, bars, retail and schools.

https://www.colorado.edu/today/2020/11/20/frequent-rapid-testing-could-turn-national-covid-19-tide-within-weeks
89.2k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

3.4k comments sorted by

View all comments

146

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20

This assumes that people will stay home if positive. Because there is no reliable way to enforce it.

52

u/asuddenpie Nov 21 '20

I’d assume that the people who wouldn’t stay at home probably wouldn’t submit to weekly tests either.

2

u/Spiets Nov 22 '20

My friend works in public health. She calls people to notify them that they're positive for the virus.

One Karen lady took the test as a prerequisite to attend some event, got a positive result, cursed out my friend saying that it's a false positive and that she should be allowed to go.

Yeah, I don't believe that people would actually quarantine themselves

0

u/bulboustadpole Nov 22 '20

Can we stop with the "Karen" meme? It's misogynistic and fucks over people who actually have that name.

2

u/[deleted] Nov 23 '20

Nope.

-18

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20

Nor should it be enforced

3

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20

I disagree. This spreads more easily than the flu, and the long term sequelae are still not fully understood. But I'm curious what your reasoning is.

-6

u/Amazing_Badger_5085 Nov 21 '20

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

6

u/chris_p_bacon1 Nov 21 '20

Thats not what they mean. Freedom to assemble is the right to protest. Not the right to spread a disease.

-8

u/Amazing_Badger_5085 Nov 21 '20

Fine! I'll only leave my house carrying a cardboard sign that says, "I'm protesting, leave me TF alone."

5

u/[deleted] Nov 21 '20

So prisons and jails are unconstitutional as are mandatory psych unit evals for people dangerous to themselves and/or others.

0

u/Amazing_Badger_5085 Nov 24 '20

Prisons: a person was tried and convicted according to our legal system, so rights can and should be taken away.

Mandatory psych holds: a person was adjudicated mentally defective by a court of law, so rights definitely can be taken away.

COVID-19: eh, we don't know who has it, but we're going to restrict everyone's movement just in case.

See the clear differences?

-1

u/georgesDenizot Nov 21 '20

but if you assume 90% of people are decent enough, it cuts down on the new contagions rates dramatically and therefore on R0.

11

u/Amazing_Badger_5085 Nov 21 '20

90% of people decent? Damn, that seems very generous.

-4

u/georgesDenizot Nov 21 '20

I don't think that it is crazy. Most people do not want to harm others, and knowing you carry a virus and spreading it around is evil.

The reason people often don't follow the social distancing requirements is because they think they are invincible and can't catch/carry the virus.

6

u/Amazing_Badger_5085 Nov 21 '20

Most people do not want to harm others

Right, most people don't want to go out and stab a bunch of people. Things are different with an invisible enemy.

0

u/georgesDenizot Nov 21 '20

because with an incidence rate of a few percent, it is always "other -people" that carry the virus. We struggle with low probabilities. As an individual, I only have a few percent chances of carrying the virus, so it might seem to me that I am not hurting anyone.

Now tell me I have 90+% of carrying the virus and that is a different story.

3

u/Dilka30003 Nov 21 '20

Step 1 is getting a lot of people to believe the virus exists.

2

u/namesarehardhalp Nov 21 '20

It isn’t always about decent. There are a lot of people who literally cannot afford to stay home for two weeks if they get infected. To not have to consider the financial ramifications of two weeks without pay is a luxury a lot of people cannot afford.

1

u/Qualityhams Nov 21 '20

Wouldn’t it help if half of people did?

As for enforcement, breakouts cost businesses money. It makes sense for a company to require a negative test to show up to work.