GG

Do you take time to read and understand what you are linking? The opening paragraph Nobody is arguing that testing isn't important. The results of the tests are critical to gather the appropriate data so that healthcare workers and officials can plan for the proper resources to treat the epidemic. But testing is far down the line in slowing the actual spread of the disease. These points have been made over and over in this thread. If you don't believe me, believe the article that you linked, which talks about statistics: The above is important for the official statistics of trying to establish the fatality rate. But what about slowing the spread, you say? So, where in the article do they say that more testing would have prevented more deaths?

If you round up the drop of 99.9997% in movie receipts, yes it is 100%

What is the prevalence of these particular diseases in America vs the rest of the world?

I'm guessing a lot of people are asking the same questions, especially with news of the outbreak on the carrier in the Indian Ocean.

The biggest variable is how seriously New Yorkers took Cuomo's admonishment on March 22 to stay away from one another.

What did Cuomo say in his press conference today? Did he implore everyone to get tested or stay the ***** at home?

People have been saying that I'm wrong, but not presenting compelling arguments. Just because someone says I'm wring, does not make them right. It's a pretty simple concept. Testing is a measure of history. History may inform the future, but it does not predict it. To prevent the viral spread, you need to be proactive rather than reactive. All your points about testing are important to take care of the present, but it does relatively nothing to alter the future unless people's behaviors change. Whether they are tested or not is immaterial to that change. Nobody is talking about the logistics of developing, testing and rolling out a test that didn't exist across a country the size of a continent. Even if the fairy tale scenario of the test being available in February was true, the cases in NY would still be climbing because few people took it seriously until March. We have two perfect examples of how changed behavior stemmed the outbreak, even when early testing wasn't available - Washington State & New Rochelle. Both places did not see continuing growth after they went into lockdown. Seattle, though did a much better job of maintaining proper virus hygiene, but NY did not, even though the lawyer's identity was known. Now NY is paying the unfortunate price for being too complacent.

And you don't think there's a slightest bit of privacy concerns? Who tracks you whereabouts? How do they know who you were in contact with? How do they contact all the people you've been in contact with?

Testing is absolutely necessary for the healthcare industry to plan their response. It's not as important to stem the spread. That onus is on the individuals.

How about using a logarithmic scale, which is the proper way to represent these numbers?

That is a non-sensical statement. Are you saying that if you are symptomatic, you should go about your business unless you get tested? Here's what's actually happening. People in the NY tristate area are far more acutely aware of the symptoms. People who show symptoms see a doctor, get tested and await the results. In the interim, they all know to stay sequestered at home. They did NOT do that up to 3 weeks ago. Now, tell me which part is the least helpful in slowing the spread of the disease in that scenario?

Have you seen the probability distribution of that 2-14 day symptomatic period? If you have, you wouldn't be throwing out that figure to back whatever point you are making. Hint, it's most certainly not a normal bell curve. That's why for the vast, vast majority of cases, symptoms appear within 48-72 hours. If people had known that and were told in early March to stay the ***** home if they were feeling even a hint of a sniffle, then US would be nowhere near the current situation. Zero testing, 100% common sense advice.

See the answer above - how often do you test the asymptomatic people? Testing helps with statistics. It does little to stop the actual spread. You don't need to go to a doctor to know you have the flu. Most people still go to work when they get the flu. This is the case that when you think you have the flu, stay away from everyone else. This is actually what SK and Taiwan do very well, and the US doesn't

Why do you need to be tested if you are feeling symptoms, and should practice proper protocol if you think you are infected? Are you saying that every person should be tested, regardless pf symptoms? How often should people be retested? Who is going to be responsible for tracing and enforcing the downstream infection risk? Or We keep hammering away the proper procedure to keep oneself clear of the infection in the first place?

How does testing stop the spread?

Who gives a flying ***** about testing? You know what real numbers are hard to suppress in the US vs China?

Absolutely the right premise. Both executives get their information from their health officials. The NYC health official was parroting the information fed by the CDC, which in February did not show concern. That's why all local officials were telling people not to worry. Trump was using the same information basis that Diblasio was. Do you think NY would still be debating public gatherings in mid-March if CDC was giving more dire warnings? Or are you now going to claim that Trump told CDC to supress bad news?

Utterly predictable that people are now pissed that Trump didn't invoke his dictatorial powers

The most plausible reason the rest of the country is experiencing slower outbreaks is that people now know what to do far better than NY & NJ did in late April/early March. People are keeping their distance and cleaning up. There's far more attention being paid to a sniffle that they would have scoffed off a month ago. I'll ask again, would the contagion be slower if there were more tests early on or if CDC had started running the virus prevention public service announcements that are pervasive now? Wonder who has greater control of running a city - a mayor or a President?

But, but, Trump played golf!!

That would only work in the early stages of the outbreak. It certainly wouldn't work in NY now, nor would it have worked in NY, where as recently as early March officials were telling people to g on with their lives. It's not only about Trump you imbecile. All officials were downplaying the threat, because that was the information that was provided to them. Why aren't you as focused on the squabble in March between Cuomo & Diblasio whether to still hold St Patty's parade?

February 2, 2020 - Does this sound a code red? “It’s very, very transmissible, and it almost certainly is going to be a pandemic,” said Dr. Anthony S. Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. “But will it be catastrophic? I don’t know.”

The celebrations last at least a week and well into February, when all local officials were telling people not to be concerned. You also don't hear too many replays of an interview that Dr Fauci did in late January where he said that the virus poses very little threat to the American public. Oops. And here's the rub about the latest criticism of elected officials - the CCP thanks you for their support. The official response was predicated on the best information that was provided upstream from people monitoring the infections. In order to respond to the worst case scenario, the health officials needed to sound the alarm as early as possible. Yet, through at least February they did not take it as seriously as it turned out because they were using SARS and H1N1 models of the spread, which clearly weren't as infectious as this strain. And why did this happen? Because a certain country and feeble officials at the "pre-eminent" global health organization downplayed the threat early on. So you can keep banging the drum about the inappropriate response from the federal government, but completely ignore the fact that they were basing their response on flawed/deceptive information that was circulated among the health officials. Do you think that Fauci would have been as sanguine if WHO was blaring code red in January, like it should have been? Look at the real cause of this disaster and the response, instead of finding a convenient scapegoat

The data for the officials and statheads are useless to stopping the spread on the ground. NYC had to forcibly close 10 playgrounds yesterday because people were still congregating there. Enlighten me how more testing would curb that behavior?

Then why harp on testing, when the priority should be on slowing the spread?