We made a mistake at first with how we talked about masks. We’re making the same mistake now with tests.
...many of us [the writer is a physician]... focus[ed] on only the most effective N95 masks at first. We knew we didn’t have enough for health care workers, and we knew that homemade masks wouldn’t work as well in the office or hospital. So we told people not to use them. Back in February I asked people on Twitter not to “waste” masks, to “leave them for those who have a real need.”
[Did you ever have this discussion with someone?: "The doctors say masks don't protect you, they protect other people from you. But if you have something, anything, a piece of tissue paper, over your face when another person sneezes there is some obstacle between you and COVID face; wouldn't that reduce by some itty bitty percentage the chances of you catching it from him?" I did, with my son.]
Of course, now we know that messaging was wrong. I should have leaned more heavily on my public health training. Public health experts...[are] thrilled to see a smaller benefit in a larger population. And there are models showing that if masks are about 60 percent efficient, fewer than three-quarters of people would need to wear them to keep a disease like Covid-19 in check.
Today we’re in danger of making the same mistake with tests. Many schools and colleges are hoping to test students often to keep any transmission in check, and frequent testing of big groups of people may be the only way to stop this virus, short of a vaccine. It’s clear that the gold standard for diagnosing infection is a sample obtained by a nasopharyngeal swab...[This is known as the P.C.R. test] The swab is uncomfortable, the test is slow, and the supplies to perform it are in short supply.
Because of that, many clinicians are arguing we need to save these tests for the sickest...“You’re using critical resources that could be better spent in other places.”-Dr. Tina Tan
But this kind of test is not the only one that can identify infected people. We don’t have to collect samples by nasopharyngeal swabs. We could swab just inside the nose. We could even test saliva.
Tests that collect samples this way may be less precise. But they could be collected really quickly, in large groups, with minimal supplies. They could even be collected by individuals themselves in their homes. We could do tons of them.
[Have you ever had this discussion with someone: "Unlike masks, testing has to be perfect to be good. We had a lot of false positives in the beginning, remember? "Less precise" is Moron-Speak for "inaccurate," for "false positives," "false negatives", for Chaos.]
We could also pool tests...Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, has proposed beginning such testing.
[Pool tests are good. I'm jumping in the pool tests.]
Some companies are even making rapid antigen tests...The problem is that they can miss more infections than a P.C.R. test. But they take only about 15 minutes to get a result...
[Oh! 15 minutes from test to erroneous result, excellent course to take.]
...every single case we identify is better than not...
[NO, you fucking quack: every single case we CORRECTLY identify is better than not. Every sing case you incorrectly id is worse. How do you not see this?]
We have to start accepting less accurate, widespread testing...stop muddling the messaging by focusing only on the most effective tests. With testing, just as with masks, more is sometimes better than perfect.
[Dude, why do you not see that that analogy is retarded? You're comparing windshields to gasoline.Go away.]
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/opinion/coronavirus-testing-antigen-pooling.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
...many of us [the writer is a physician]... focus[ed] on only the most effective N95 masks at first. We knew we didn’t have enough for health care workers, and we knew that homemade masks wouldn’t work as well in the office or hospital. So we told people not to use them. Back in February I asked people on Twitter not to “waste” masks, to “leave them for those who have a real need.”
[Did you ever have this discussion with someone?: "The doctors say masks don't protect you, they protect other people from you. But if you have something, anything, a piece of tissue paper, over your face when another person sneezes there is some obstacle between you and COVID face; wouldn't that reduce by some itty bitty percentage the chances of you catching it from him?" I did, with my son.]
Of course, now we know that messaging was wrong. I should have leaned more heavily on my public health training. Public health experts...[are] thrilled to see a smaller benefit in a larger population. And there are models showing that if masks are about 60 percent efficient, fewer than three-quarters of people would need to wear them to keep a disease like Covid-19 in check.
Today we’re in danger of making the same mistake with tests. Many schools and colleges are hoping to test students often to keep any transmission in check, and frequent testing of big groups of people may be the only way to stop this virus, short of a vaccine. It’s clear that the gold standard for diagnosing infection is a sample obtained by a nasopharyngeal swab...[This is known as the P.C.R. test] The swab is uncomfortable, the test is slow, and the supplies to perform it are in short supply.
Because of that, many clinicians are arguing we need to save these tests for the sickest...“You’re using critical resources that could be better spent in other places.”-Dr. Tina Tan
But this kind of test is not the only one that can identify infected people. We don’t have to collect samples by nasopharyngeal swabs. We could swab just inside the nose. We could even test saliva.
Tests that collect samples this way may be less precise. But they could be collected really quickly, in large groups, with minimal supplies. They could even be collected by individuals themselves in their homes. We could do tons of them.
[Have you ever had this discussion with someone: "Unlike masks, testing has to be perfect to be good. We had a lot of false positives in the beginning, remember? "Less precise" is Moron-Speak for "inaccurate," for "false positives," "false negatives", for Chaos.]
We could also pool tests...Brett Giroir, the assistant secretary for health at the Department of Health and Human Services, has proposed beginning such testing.
[Pool tests are good. I'm jumping in the pool tests.]
Some companies are even making rapid antigen tests...The problem is that they can miss more infections than a P.C.R. test. But they take only about 15 minutes to get a result...
[Oh! 15 minutes from test to erroneous result, excellent course to take.]
...every single case we identify is better than not...
[NO, you fucking quack: every single case we CORRECTLY identify is better than not. Every sing case you incorrectly id is worse. How do you not see this?]
We have to start accepting less accurate, widespread testing...stop muddling the messaging by focusing only on the most effective tests. With testing, just as with masks, more is sometimes better than perfect.
[Dude, why do you not see that that analogy is retarded? You're comparing windshields to gasoline.Go away.]
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/28/opinion/coronavirus-testing-antigen-pooling.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
