Fat hurts wrote:
brazen2 wrote:
If the data from 5/5 is combined positivity would make the rate lower, correct. So, the PCR positivity for that date would likely be even higher than 14.8%, correct? Resulting in an even lower drop.
I guess I'm not following your logic. You are looking at positivity as an reason for not reopening Georgia. That doesn't make sense if you are looking to get an accurate measure of positivity. You also say certain people shouldn't get tested and the CDC and GADPH is telling certain groups of people NOT to get tested or discouraging them. Can you point to where the CDC or GADPH says that certain groups of people should not get tested. I'd be astounded if that is the case.
I think that your attitude about getting tested is unreasonable to say the least. People shouldn't get tested because that is where the sick people are? That's crazy. I think you need to educate yourself on the testing process. All the testing locations I know are outside - in parks or empty parking lots. CVS does a drive up where you don't get out of your car and you administer the test yourself - it's a very simple nasal swab. You'd have a much higher chance of getting sick going to the grocery store.
We need more testing, not less.People need to be encouraged to be tested and not discouraged. I'm sure there are a lot of people like you out there that are asymptomatic positive, but don't think they need to get tested either.
Read the article on South Korea. Testing is the primary reason they handled the virus so well.
Yes, we don't know what the GA positivity rate was before a few days ago. So there is no way to compare.
From the first testing until 5/5, the positivity rate was ~15%. This could contain some antibody tests. Antibody tests have had a lower positivity rate than viral tests, so it is safe to assume that the positivity rate up to 5/5 was higher.
Since positivity is dependent on number of people tested, I don't put a lot of weight in them.
Let me first say, I am all for testing. We need more (a lot more) of it. But the purpose of testing is to find positive cases. A negative test is always a waste of resources. So you want to prioritize the people who are most likely to be positive. That's definitely not me.
A negative test is absolutely not a waste of resources. "Prioritize" is the key word. Prioritize does not mean that lower risk people should not get tested. Test, trace, isolate is that way we get out of this.
Sure, you could get the positivity rate down by testing lots of people like me over and over. The reason you look at positivity is because it should be a measure of how hard it is to find new cases. That doesn't work if you emphasize testing people who are extremely unlikely to be positive.
Again, positivity is a small part of the equation. Where is the sweet spot for testing, in your opinion? Early on we had a lack of testing capacity, only tested symptomatic people and had a high positivity. If we tested everyone, we would have a very low positivity. There is no way to get an accurate positivity rate unless a randomized sampling was completed. Therefore, benchmarks of 10%, 5%, 2%, etc. are meaningless without randomizing testing. Test (even low risk), trace, isolate.
On the CDC web site under "Who should be tested", it says:
* Most people will have mild illness and can recover at home without medical care and may not need to be tested. (If some symptomatic people don't need a test, that strongly suggests testing of unexposed asymptomatic individuals is wasteful)
You have to agree that this is strange. If they have a mild illness and are not tested, they will not be counted in how many positives cases a locality has. As you said earlier, the "purpose of testing is to find positive cases." Also, we can't trace if they are not tested.
* Although supplies of tests are increasing, it may still be difficult to find a place to get tested. (Again, testing is a finite resource)
In Georgia, it is quite easy for most people to find a testing site. This is irrelevant.
This all implies that asymptomatic people without exposure to COVID-19 probably don't need to seek a test right now.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/symptoms-testing/testing.htmlImplies. Still don't see "discouraged."
Theoretically, anyone in Georgia can get a free test. But if you look at the GA DPH page for COVID-19 Online Testing Request, asymptomatic patients are clearly a low priority.
https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-online-testing-requestLower priority, yes. Of course, people who have severe symptoms are going to be high priority. There is no discouraging anyone from getting a test on there though.
As for how South Korea beat the virus, it wasn't just testing and tracing. It was the combination of quarantine, good public heath practices, and testing. Or as I've been saying all along, the basic plan should be this:
1) Shut it down
2) Stop the spread
3) Test and trace
You really need to read up on how South Korea quickly slowed the outbreak. They didn't shut down even close to what the US did. Test, Trace, Isolate.
Without 1 and 2, testing and tracing is a lost cause. There just isn't enough manpower to do the testing and tracing you would need when you still have widespread infection.
You still want to do testing and tracing because it still benefits public health. But you won't be able to defeat the virus without 1 and 2 as well.