Testing and Contact Tracing - What Do We Need?

[CountryGal]

I think there is a misconception of testing in a lot of people, including some at the top. The reason we need so much testing is to isolate the sick and not everyone. Right now our only tool is to isolate everyone. A large percentage of folks are infected with no symptoms and are spreading the virus to everyone around them. If I had to work somewhere, I would want to know that the people I work with are "safe" and that they are periodically tested. Those infected must then be isolated.

Based on the lack of testing in our area, I will not be going anywhere even when things "open". If others feel the same there will be a lot of places going out of business.

 

[Midpack]

I think there is a misconception of testing in a lot of people, including some at the top. The reason we need so much testing is to isolate the sick and not everyone. Right now our only tool is to isolate everyone. A large percentage of folks are infected with no symptoms and are spreading the virus to everyone around them. If I had to work somewhere, I would want to know that the people I work with are "safe" and that they are periodically tested. Those infected must then be isolated.

Based on the lack of testing in our area, I will not be going anywhere even when things "open". If others feel the same there will be a lot of places going out of business.

Then what? "Lots of places going out of business" has significant consequences for all of us too, no easy answers.

 

[brewer12345]

Then what? "Lots of places going out of business" has significant consequences for all of us too, no easy answers.

So healthcare Russian roulette is a better choice? You seem to be implying that is the case.

 

[gwraigty]

Then what? "Lots of places going out of business" has significant consequences for all of us too, no easy answers.

+1

I can't believe that so many people appear not to understand that.

 

[Whisper66]

So healthcare Russian roulette is a better choice? You seem to be implying that is the case.

Yes.

 

[harllee]

Then what? "Lots of places going out of business" has significant consequences for all of us too, no easy answers.

But isn't there a middle ground? Can't businesses adapt and provide an environment safer from the virus? I am thinking of a few local restaurants where we do curbside pick up. They seem to have caught on what needs to be done. I feel safe ordering from them and they seem to be doing a very good business. On the other hand one of our favorite restaurants has simply closed and has not tried to do any sort of pickup or delivery. I called the owner and he said he just cold not figure out how to do take out. Businesses like that may go under. Other businesses who figure it our may flourish.

 

[audreyh1]

Then what? "Lots of places going out of business" has significant consequences for all of us too, no easy answers.

What’s the alternative? Many businesses are going to have fewer customers, especially if it seems unsafe to patronize/use the business in the near term. For example, how many here are flying or traveling for pleasure now or plan to do so the next 2 or 3 months.

For some businesses they will have enough customers to get through.

In addition to making the workplace environment safe by taking several precautions, employees having to work in a place of business with other workers and/or the public really need frequent testing to be able to contain outbreaks in the work environment and the resulting community spread. I think we’re going to be seeing that scenario playing out over and over during the coming weeks/months.

 

[brewer12345]

What’s the alternative? Many businesses are going to have fewer customers, especially if it seems unsafe to patronize/use the business in the near term. For example, how many here are flying or traveling for pleasure now or plan to do so the next 2 or 3 months.

For some businesses they will have enough customers to get through.

In addition to making the workplace environment safe by taking several precautions, employees having to work in a place of business with other workers and/or the public really need frequent testing to be able to contain outbreaks in the work environment and the resulting community spread. I think we’re going to be seeing that scenario playing out over and over during the coming weeks/months.

A restaurant in the next county opened against the shutdown order. The pictures I have seen show the place packed with no distancing or masks. We will likely have lots of openings like this, retards contracting the rona like mad, and a second shelter in place that really will finish off both the dopes that insisted on opening as well as those who did not. So you will see a horrific depression and a bad second wave.

Whatever. I will hunker in the bunker. Good luck to all the mentally challenged.

 

[Midpack]

So healthcare Russian roulette is a better choice? You seem to be implying that is the case.

I’m simply saying there are consequences to extending the lockdowns too, including health issues. We’ll never all agree on where to draw the line between minimizing coronavirus deaths and minimizing economic damage. And we have to decide without all the facts. I’m sure you remember being faced with decisions without all the facts and living what the outcome during your career - many of us did it often. Granted this is more serious, but it’s the same predicament.

 

[audreyh1]

I’m simply saying there are consequences to extending the lockdowns too, including health issues. We’ll never all agree on where to draw the line between minimizing coronavirus deaths and minimizing economic damage. And we have to decide without all the facts. I’m sure you remember being faced with decisions without all the facts and living what the outcome during your career - many of us did it often. Granted this is more serious, but it’s the same predicament.

CountryGal’s post was not saying businesses should remain in lockdown, she was simply pointing out that there might be plenty of customers like her who don’t feel safe patronizing local businesses because there is little testing in her area.

This isn’t about keeping lockdowns indefinitely. Lockdowns in many places are being lifted and most businesses that want to can open back up or will be able to do so soon.

That does not mean that all their customers will come back right away, especially since covid-19 spread continues in the US and will probably accelerate.

So we are already stuck with a reduced economic situation because we continue to be in a pandemic which looks to go on for a long time. IMO incredible access to frequent testing in the work environment will help limit outbreaks. Limiting outbreaks will keep businesses safer, otherwise there will be even more negative economic outcomes.

 

[USGrant1962]

But isn't there a middle ground? Can't businesses adapt and provide an environment safer from the virus? I am thinking of a few local restaurants where we do curbside pick up. They seem to have caught on what needs to be done. I feel safe ordering from them and they seem to be doing a very good business. On the other hand one of our favorite restaurants has simply closed and has not tried to do any sort of pickup or delivery. I called the owner and he said he just cold not figure out how to do take out. Businesses like that may go under. Other businesses who figure it our may flourish.

It is highly unlikely they are even covering their fixed and overhead costs operating like that. They are likely to go under too if this lasts. Even full restaurants are a low margin business.

 

[audreyh1]

If what lasts? The pandemic?

States are going ahead and opening up even though we still have plenty of states with increasing infections.

So I think we can quit arguing about whether or not businesses should open up since all states are moving in that direction already.

 

[Turbo29]

A 'very, very messy' process: How pandemics end

When will the COVID-19 pandemic end? And how?
According to historians, pandemics typically have two types of endings: the medical, which occurs when the incidence and death rates plummet, and the social, when the epidemic of fear about the disease wanes.
“When people ask, ‘When will this end?,’ they are asking about the social ending,” said Dr. Jeremy Greene, a historian of medicine at Johns Hopkins.


In other words, an end can occur not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/How-Pandemics-End-15260064.php

 

[brewer12345]

A 'very, very messy' process: How pandemics end

When will the COVID-19 pandemic end? And how?
According to historians, pandemics typically have two types of endings: the medical, which occurs when the incidence and death rates plummet, and the social, when the epidemic of fear about the disease wanes.
“When people ask, ‘When will this end?,’ they are asking about the social ending,” said Dr. Jeremy Greene, a historian of medicine at Johns Hopkins.


In other words, an end can occur not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/How-Pandemics-End-15260064.php

That is silly. The virus does not care if you are afraid or not.

 

[audreyh1]

A 'very, very messy' process: How pandemics end

When will the COVID-19 pandemic end? And how?
According to historians, pandemics typically have two types of endings: the medical, which occurs when the incidence and death rates plummet, and the social, when the epidemic of fear about the disease wanes.
“When people ask, ‘When will this end?,’ they are asking about the social ending,” said Dr. Jeremy Greene, a historian of medicine at Johns Hopkins.


In other words, an end can occur not because a disease has been vanquished but because people grow tired of panic mode and learn to live with a disease.
https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/How-Pandemics-End-15260064.php

I agree that overall it’s going to be a messy process. But sorry, I thought that was a dumb article. Dismissing what happened so far as panic and an epidemic of fear because drastic steps were taken to avoid what happened in Italy and not overwhelm our healthcare resources, is pretty useless. It’s also sort of concluding that it’s about over because states are opening back up because people are fed up but was pretty wishy washy on that point. IMO as long as the virus is spreading people are going to be dealing with upheaval and having to live differently. They may think they deserve to get back to their old life, but that’s going to take quite a bit longer.

 

[neihn]

Is it reasonable for employee to request co-workers to be tested? I heard some people get tested everyday in order to allow to to show up.

If we do that with every worker then I think it is probably safe to to move on.

 

[gwraigty]

So I think we can quit arguing about whether or not businesses should open up since all states are moving in that direction already.

+1

It's also important to realize that it's not going to be full steam ahead with everything running as smoothly as before, depending on the industry, supply chain issues, etc. Customer sentiment is but one cog in the big machine.

A local independent full service restaurant owner reported last week that he's shutting down completely "until this whole coronavirus thing is over", right when we're on the verge of being able to reopen dining rooms (with limited capacity) next week. He's been featured in our local news, with details of the somewhat unusual methods he's used to convert his business to offer limited carry out service. The last straw for him was an increasing inability to get the few specific cuts of meats he uses. His loyal customers are willing to be flexible and want him to remain open, but he refuses to adapt to using different cuts. I'd say the stresses in the meat supply food chain are only part of the cause. He's been putting up roadblocks to his continued success, from what has been reported. It's a shame.

In a happier restaurant story - so far - DD has returned to working about 40 hrs. per week after manufacturing, distribution, construction, and general office, reopened last week. She'd lost 75% to 85% of her hours and income overnight with the shutdowns. Overnight, she got it all back as people in those industries returned to work. They're doing quite well for the moment, even without the dine in business. It should continue as long as the underlying supportive industries can operate without too many interruptions. Retail business can reopen tomorrow. That may lead to a little more business from those workers.

Supply chains are stressed and not just in the food chain. I've read of manufacturers who were allowed to remain open as essential businesses, but couldn't operate effectively at even a limited capacity. They'd run the production line for a couple of days, then they'd have to shut it down due to supply chain issues. As more businesses have been allowed to reopen, that adds more competition for a limited supply of whatever they all need to keep operating. Continued business interruptions may become a new normal for awhile.

 

[gwraigty]

Is it reasonable for employee to request co-workers to be tested? I heard some people get tested everyday in order to allow to to show up.

If we do that with every worker then I think it is probably safe to to move on.

Where did you hear that? What test are you talking about? From what I've read, COVID-19 test results aren't instant. As to the legalities of what you're asking, you're not allowed to know any details of your co-workers health conditions without their permission. If an employee tests positive for COVID-19, the employer isn't allowed to disclose the person's identity to other employees. If you're contacted by your health department and told you've been in close contact with someone who tested positive, they won't tell you who it was.

 

[Aerides]

Is it reasonable for employee to request co-workers to be tested? I heard some people get tested everyday in order to allow to to show up.

If we do that with every worker then I think it is probably safe to to move on.

Near-real-time testing is not readily available. I believe this is very new, and only the White House reports using it daily at this point. There are discussions about congress using it, but that's a larger population of course.

It's probably also quite expensive, and requires doctors to perform, so unlikely to be viable at most employers even if it can be manufactured to scale. At least not with this initial reopening.

Yes, one day, a real time test, including self administered home tests, would go a long way to regaining confidence.

 

[audreyh1]

Near-real-time testing is not readily available. I believe this is very new, and only the White House reports using it daily at this point. There are discussions about congress using it, but that's a larger population of course.

It's probably also quite expensive, and requires doctors to perform, so unlikely to be viable at most employers even if it can be manufactured to scale. At least not with this initial reopening.

Yes, one day, a real time test, including self administered home tests, would go a long way to regaining confidence.

Recently, an employer was able to contact the local health department and have his employees tested which calmed them down about returning to work. Meat packing plants have been doing a lot of testing. I think regular routine testing is going to be required to move forward without constant plant shutdowns, so figuring out how to make it possible is really important.

 

[neihn]

Where did you hear that? What test are you talking about? From what I've read, COVID-19 test results aren't instant. As to the legalities of what you're asking, you're not allowed to know any details of your co-workers health conditions without their permission. If an employee tests positive for COVID-19, the employer isn't allowed to disclose the person's identity to other employees. If you're contacted by your health department and told you've been in close contact with someone who tested positive, they won't tell you who it was.

The test is available and the result is come back in 5 minutes, and people are required to get test every day before they can enter the building.

 

[brewer12345]

The test is available and the result is come back in 5 minutes, and people are required to get test every day before they can enter the building.

This is the test that is only 85% accurate, right?

 

[neihn]

This is the test that is only 85% accurate, right?

If those important people in the ...are using the test even though it is only 85% accurate. Should they make it available to employers? Is it too much for an employee to ask for getting test?

If you are restaurant owner, would you want your employees get tested before they come to work?

 

[brewer12345]

If those important people in the ...are using the test even though it is only 85% accurate. Should they make it available to employers? Is it too much for an employee to ask for getting test?

If you are restaurant owner, would you want your employees get tested before they come to work?

If it is 15 percent false negatives, the test is basically worthless.

 

[audreyh1]

I think 85% accurate is way better than nothing. It will catch a lot, get those people isolated, and thus reduce spread. Unfortunately can’t catch all which would support full containment in a workplace. Testing will have to be repeated constantly anyway due to outside exposures.

US just has to keep working on making testing better, more available, easier, etc.

If folks are concerned about false confidence and riskier behavior, well that has to be dealt with too. You can’t abandon the other practices that reduce chances of infection.