Kolek planning to go pro
Iran is a nightmare...
I mean we're talking about collections here, not testing and results. Just drive up, get swabbed, and you're out. Samples get moved to a testing lab. I don't see this being difficult.
It may or may not be a hard stop by itself, but in any case it’s a very real factor to consider while considering additional considerations like cost and such.
Explain China, South Korea, Japan, Singapore.How did they get this under control?The window narrows every day that we don't implement this sort of solution. Should have been ramping up the moment that this left China's border.What is your solution to deal with what is coming? Let it happen? Let all the people who are at risk, die? Bad news, you're talking about letting hundreds of thousands of people die, probably more. For starters, we have about one million hospital beds available in the US, and 65% of those are occupied with non-Covid19 patients. Now we look at people with risk factors. Obesity (99 mllion), kidney disease (30 million), COPD (16 million, low end)... I realize there is plenty of overlap in those numbers, but you get my point. And no, I'm not saying they're all going to die. But if we say 60% of the obese population contracts this, and we say only 5% die, we are still talking about just under 3 million people. You're an engineer (presumably from your name), run the numbers.What do you suggest? I'm genuinely curious.
You've mentioned cost and the financial side a few times. Thousands of dead would appear to be the bigger cost - both emotionally and financially - though may help SS and Medicaid/medicare #s. Or perhaps you've already written them off (no hope). Curious why else you seem to indicate cost and finances are a reason to not do testing. You claim is it's cheaper not to test?
If low-risk symptomatic people follow the CDC guidelines and self-quarantine, it won’t cause additional deaths. In fact, as I said above, keeping them away from clinics and hospitals full of higher-risk people might save lives.
Ah. I think I understand, and see the difference in our thinking - which isn't that far apart. I think most people will press on and do their jobs/go to social gatherings *while* being sick (or "not that sick" as they might determine) unless we make testing super easy and free. It's the American way. You don't let a simple fever or cough stop you from being successful!You think higher of the US public than I do. That's all.
Anyway, we can agree to disagree.
people should follow the CDC recommendations.
I don’t see huge numbers getting a test that might lead to a forced quarantine.
100% agree. Which is why we should eat as much Arbys as possible before they go bankrupt.
You think higher of the US public than I do. That's all.
Wow, I'm very concerned for Benny. Being able to mimic Myron Medcalf's writing so closely implies an oncoming case of dementia.
One other point about quickly setting up a drive-through system: when you quickly take a process out of its usual environment, you raise the risk for errors. We already know that samples occasionally get mishandled, contaminated or mislabeled in the normal clinic and hospital environment. It is quite possible that a hastily designed drive-through system would increase the error rate. So there’s the cost, but also the quality challenge due to a quick change in logistics.
Just for my edification, what are the six steps from Arby’s to Kevin Bacon?
These are pretty simple experiments. Most biochemistry labs in the US can easily run these assays, and can do them with far higher accuracy and throughput than many of the official labs.It would be no problem whatsoever to set up drive through testing, with high accuracy and higher throughput. The problem is the US has regulations on who can do clinical testing and who can report clinical results. That is the barrier, regulations, not any logistical issues or accuracy.
You are right about the complexities at the interface between clinical and research testing (I have had head-scratching conversations with FDA about that exact topic)...but that isn’t what I’m talking about. I’m talking about simple, straightforward purely clinical testing. Even in that relatively straightforward setting, errors are made in the handling and labeling of specimens. They aren’t frequent, but they happen. If you add new logistical processes to the mix, the error rate is bound to go up. So I disagree with your comment that there aren’t problems in terms of logistics or accurate reporting. There are.
The problems with handling labeling etc., are largely from many hands being involved in collecting, labeling, transporting, preparing, and then testing the samples. The drive through, high-throughput system would limit that. It would have a person collecting samples, providing them to the person who prepares and tests on site. It would be vastly faster, and since it has fewer hands in the mix, would have far less errors.We are doing this in the most moronic, cumbersome, and inefficient way nearly imaginable.
You are overstating the feasibility and simplicity of doing PCR-based testing in the field with a near-zero error rate. You will become a very rich man if you can actually bring that to pass.Godspeed.
They went into full lock down, that approach can absolutely works(until rounds 2, 3, 4.... come around again). I'm extremely sceptical that we could execute such a plan in the US and that it's actually necessary.We need to lower the infection curve but I don't think we need anything drastic to do that. Wash hands, if you feel unwell stay home, and if you are higher risk stay home as much as practical. We canIt is inevitable this virus will spread and it will kill, tragic but death is a part of life. I don't say this casually as my parents are high risk, my sons godfather is 42 and has Cystic fibrosis, and I have a 4 year old and a 9 month old. We aren't going to stop it and we aren't going to take mortality rate to zero. We try to limit the damage and slow the curve but given the current understanding of the virus it is no time to hit the panic button as some seem to advocate.
I do this quit regularly.
So things are hard so we should not do them because we might make a mistake?https://www.cbsnews.com/news/drive-thru-coronavirus-testing-facility-us-seattle-washington/
The in-lab part, or the logistical part of setting up large-scale systems for accurate collection, handling, labeling, transporting and reporting of results? Two very different animals, and in my experience the in-lab people routinely underestimate the complexity and potential error rates in the latter.If you have a solution beyond the in-lab part, then by all means go ahead and show the rest of the medical community how it’s done easily, on-site and with a low error rate.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-delays.html#click=https://t.co/mlEjBJl96Q