This one will be short. I'm getting pretty irritated hearing democrats insist we cannot open the economy without more testing.
What do they think testing will add? We know how many are presenting themselves for assistance, hospitalized, in the ICU, and die. Suppose we knew the status of everyone else in the country? Let's take the situations one at a time.
First, let's suppose testing showed everyone has either got the virus or has had it. Would we open? Yes. No one is left to overload our hospital system.
Second, let's suppose no one that is outside the hospitals shows active infections. Some number show they have had it. Would we open? Yes. No one is left to infect the others.
Now suppose the situation is fifty/fifty. Say half the population outside the hospitals either have the virus or have had it. Further, assume that half is split evenly. Would we open? Yes. The hospitalization rate and mortality rate are so low, we can handle any future cases.
What do they expect to find that would justify keeping the economy closed?
About the only thing I would find of use, from an opening standpoint, is an unusually high rise of asymptomatic cases in a locality. Any rise is more severe cases can be detected when patients ask for doctor assistance. That might imply a soon-to-be hot spot breakout, and would justify a local lock down. But the same thing can be identified through rising doctor and hospital visits with lesser testing.
So any insistence on saturation testing is just drivel.
Post a Comment