This is well worth reading. https://www.erinbromage.com/post/th...9eQHNF44hFtUAFxFlye2gf2e-nHyn-9-swRGfLdQUt6yc
That's a great article RSB. Very interesting read. VERY greatly simplified, if I'd be at risk to get the flu from someone due to whatever environment circumstance I'm in... I'm at risk to be infected by corona virus if present in the same such environment. Got it. My thought is that... I'm wondering really how many of the general U.S. population have already been in contact with and become infected? For some reason, I'm thinking that the number of "infected," which doesn't mean "sick," is probably pretty high, if for no other logic than all those reasons Professor Erin was explaining "how" virus gets from that person to this one. Wouldn't it be nice to wave a magic wand over someone and be able to say, "Oh, you already had it." Then, kick back and see if they develop symptoms... Or better yet, wave said wand and have it say, "You've got the antibodies, you're good to go." Oh, yeah the wand would be free to use, or at least be $100 for 10,000 "waves."
That tool exists - the problem is that FDA until just a few days ago did nothing to sort out the "good" wands from the "bad" wands. And there has been no coordinated effort to ramp up production of the "good" wands and no national plan to get them distributed and administered. The good news that in spite of this, there are more antibody tests available and many states have plans for large increases in testing. Time will tell if it is enough.
Here is an article about anti body testing Why a positive Covid-19 antibody test doesn't mean much of anything yet - CNN. This is one article amongst many that have been available on many news sites over the last week or so. Here is a link to the FDA announcement regarding the tightening of the rules. Insight into FDA’s Revised Policy on Antibody Tests for COVID-19 The most relevant portion of that announcement: "However, flexibility never meant we would allow fraud. We unfortunately see unscrupulous actors marketing fraudulent test kits and using the pandemic as an opportunity to take advantage of Americans’ anxiety. Some test developers have falsely claimed their serological tests are FDA approved or authorized. Others have falsely claimed that their tests can diagnose COVID-19 or that they are for at-home testing, which would fall outside of the policies outlined in our March 16 guidance, as well as the updated guidance. Also, since that time, the FDA has become aware that a concerning number of commercial serology tests are being promoted inappropriately, including for diagnostic use, or are performing poorly based on an independent evaluation by the NIH." As far as my statement about there not being a national plan for distributing and administering the tests, I cannot point you to any one article. But the President has said over and over that testing is the responsibilty of the governors. I would charectorize that as meaning there is no national plan. I am sure that others will view that position as a sufficient plan.
I was also bewildered by Lens,” no national plan“ statement, but thought it might get political so I at first felt it was best not to comment, however based on the last post I thought a comment is warranted. From what I have viewed first hand, not news reports, the Federal Government has provided guidelines, tools and supplies to the States but because of our federal system and recognizing the local government is closer to the problems and is best suited to manage the outbreak and are given that authority. I truly believe irrelevant to the politics, US civil servants will always make sure the people will always receive the best possible service.
I would tend to agree. States rights is pretty much the foundation of our country. I think a unilateral Federal response would be too much of a one size fits all, even if they weren’t trying to do that.
I believe the states should be in charge of their response. They should take into account the recommendations from the national organizations. But I believe population density should be a main factor in determining your approach. This should also be applied even in each state, New York City and upper New York don’t have the same population density. You can’t compare large cities to rural America. The difference between an apartment building that may house hundreds of people and a community that may not have 500 people in a square mile don’t have the same issues. There is a certain amount of social distancing built into rural America. You must be proactive to any crisis that may arise and have a plan, don’t just shut everything down when you may never have a crisis. Just me 2 cents. Come on September.
It’s the same in Canada. Federal Government has some recommended guidelines, and is obviously in charge of regular stuff (borders). But healthcare falls under the provinces. Most of the daily guidelines that affect me are made at that provincial level.
