Does anyone see the problem with having the requirement that we need to increase testing but we can't open the economy up unless we see a decrease in the number of cases?
The total number of true infections (not tested cases) could easily be declining but increased testing could make it look like the opposite is happening.
Kind of one of the "freakanomic"' examples where the requirement of declining cases creates a different behavior than desired (if I'm pro business, how would I be incentivized to push for more testing?)

Maybe decline in hospital admissions due to covid19 should be the better measure as that is not effected by testing rates.

......I'm not saying we don't need more testing, they will be useful in understanding the magnitude of the issue and allowing localized containment versus shut the whole country down. I'm just not sure it's the correct measurement of success because it is so highly dependent on testing rate changes.

The ultimate test is how many covid 19 deaths there are, I'd think.

Worthwhile read: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/610132/

Quote:

---

The U.S. did almost 25 times as many tests on April 15 as on March 15, yet both the daily positive rate and the overall positive rate went up in that month. If the U.S. were a jar of 330 million jelly beans, then over the course of the outbreak, the health-care system has reached in with a bigger and bigger scoop. But every day, 20 percent of the beans it pulls out are positive for COVID-19. If the outbreak were indeed under control, then we would expect more testingthat is, a larger scoopto yield a smaller and smaller proportion of positives. So far, that hasn't happened.
...
While our numbers still probably do not capture every coronavirus test in the U.S., outside evidence now suggests that our data are fairly complete. When the White House Coronavirus Task Force has reported the number of tests completed nationwide, its numbers have broadly matched the COVID Tracking Project's. In addition, the largest commercial-test processors, Quest and LabCorp, have released top-line statistics that align with ours at the COVID Tracking Project.

The high positivity rate also suggests that new cases in the U.S. have plateaued only because the country has hit a ceiling in its testing capacity. Looking solely at positives, the U.S. is steaming toward 650,000 confirmed cases, but the number of new cases per day appears to be plateauing or even declining.



There are several ways to interpret this development. It might suggest, for instance, that the more than 3.2 million tests completed in the U.S. over the past two months have finally captured a good chunk of the people who are actually infected. While it's clear that the country is not capturing every case, this decline in new positive cases might suggest the country has started to get the virus's spread under control.

But there is another way to interpret the decline in new cases: The growth in the number of new tests completed per day has also plateaued. Since April 1, the country has tested roughly 145,000 people every day with no steady upward trajectory. The growth in the number of new cases per day, and the growth in the number of new tests per day, are very tightly correlated.

---

To contain the virus, you have to proactively test the asymptomatic.

Bus drivers, restaurant employees, retail workers, cops, medical professionals and countless others need to be tested frequently. We will literally need millions of tests a day if we want to get to South Korea before a vaccine.

Fitch said:

---

Worthwhile read: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theatlantic.com/amp/article/610132/

Quote:

---

The U.S. did almost 25 times as many tests on April 15 as on March 15, yet both the daily positive rate and the overall positive rate went up in that month. If the U.S. were a jar of 330 million jelly beans, then over the course of the outbreak, the health-care system has reached in with a bigger and bigger scoop. But every day, 20 percent of the beans it pulls out are positive for COVID-19. If the outbreak were indeed under control, then we would expect more testingthat is, a larger scoopto yield a smaller and smaller proportion of positives. So far, that hasn't happened.
...
While our numbers still probably do not capture every coronavirus test in the U.S., outside evidence now suggests that our data are fairly complete. When the White House Coronavirus Task Force has reported the number of tests completed nationwide, its numbers have broadly matched the COVID Tracking Project's. In addition, the largest commercial-test processors, Quest and LabCorp, have released top-line statistics that align with ours at the COVID Tracking Project.

The high positivity rate also suggests that new cases in the U.S. have plateaued only because the country has hit a ceiling in its testing capacity. Looking solely at positives, the U.S. is steaming toward 650,000 confirmed cases, but the number of new cases per day appears to be plateauing or even declining.



There are several ways to interpret this development. It might suggest, for instance, that the more than 3.2 million tests completed in the U.S. over the past two months have finally captured a good chunk of the people who are actually infected. While it's clear that the country is not capturing every case, this decline in new positive cases might suggest the country has started to get the virus's spread under control.

But there is another way to interpret the decline in new cases: The growth in the number of new tests completed per day has also plateaued. Since April 1, the country has tested roughly 145,000 people every day with no steady upward trajectory. The growth in the number of new cases per day, and the growth in the number of new tests per day, are very tightly correlated.

---

---

Note that they did not discuss hospitalization rate. Hospitalizations are trending downward in a lot, if not most, areas. While we don't know the exact ratio, hospitalizations will trend with infection rates.

Ag$08 said:

---

The testing per capita isn't too far behind South Korea anymore on a total test count per capita basis, and South Korea was going full tilt from day one. It's very possible the US is already where we need to be capacity wise on a day to day basis.

We do not have a track and trace system, and that's going to be harder to legally do in the US.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/02/826368789/fact-check-trump-claims-u-s-testing-for-coronavirus-most-per-capita-its-not

---

Korea has a low test per capita rate but a really high test per infection rate....because they have it under control...because they tested frequently, early and widely

We are NOwhere near where we need to be for testing.

Soko has earned their low testing rate...we haven't.

You're still missing the point. A leveling off of test is not a leveling off of capacity. South Korea tracks and traces to identify people to test that are asymptotic. We don't have that and will not because it violates civil liberties. The best we can do is test people that have symptoms and we're keeping up with that now.

I'm pretty disappointed in our entire system. With everything completely almost shut down, A massive government spending package, a complete change to all our daily lives AND our 7 day test number avg is the same as it was a week ago?

If more testing is probably the number one way to get out of this and get the economy going again, then with the magnitude of what's going on, how the hell are we only testing the same number of people as we were a week ago. It's just kinda embarrassing as a whole.

I think the lock down has drastically reduced the number of people going to get tested. You don't waste a test unless someone has symptoms and goes to get tested. So actual test numbers drop.

places have plenty of tests now, from what I have read. The antibody test is the one we really need.

you want to over test to make sure you aren't missing anyone

it's not diagnostic it's surveillance

you want your positives in the low single digit percentages

and you want that as a baseline for surveillance moving forward

we've got none of that

no one is locked in their house

and it's up to the public health officials to set up the surveillance program

the absence of a plan isn't a plan

Hence why the lack of increase in testing is so embarrassing as a society. So much is on the line and we've stagnated for a week.

Many people have criticized the government for a lack of "testing", and slow result reporting. The reality of it is that many of the early test kits were inaccurate, as were some of the collection methods. There are several instances of other countries using Chinese and other test kits early on, only to determine whether they faulty and probably causing much more harm than good (giving people false sense of security that they were NOT infected when they, in fact, were actively shedding virus particles). It is also not known how long immunity is conferred after exposure and virus "clearance".

I saw a CDC physician as a patient on Friday. He said that there are currently nearly 100 different companies studying and/or marketing serum tests for SARS COV-2 antibodies. The CDC is trying to determine which, if any, have low enough false positive and false negative rates to condone mass testing. And one of the problems is that the CDC doesn't have huge stores of serum from people who have had exposure to OTHER Coronaviruses similar enough to this NOVEL Coronavirus to determine how good the tests are. It isn't as simple as people want to believe. Mass testing with faulty test kits is probably more harmful than people would ever imagine. As a healthcare worker, I REALLY want to get tested and show a positive IgG and a negative IgM and feel as if I can go back to work and not worry. I am giving him serum this week that he will use to test one of the labs in Oklahoma that is trying to market a test. IF the test results showed what I hope they showed, but the test were faulty, I would be in danger of letting my guard down and possibly even becoming a "super spreader" if I were to get infected, and come in contact with people before my symptoms developed.

I am all for criticizing the government if and when it is warranted, but this isn't really all that cut and dry yet. This is a NOVEL Coronavirus. We've never seen it. We've never had a successful vaccine for Coronaviruses, partly because Coronaviruses are normally (SARS COV-1 and MERS being the exceptions) relatively innocuous.

you've changed the subject

we can't wait but we can't prepare either

so **** it. that's what I'm hearing.