Have you noticed that our government is not perfect? Before you answer that, exactly what is perfect? Are you starting to understand the problem? That is what this blog is about.
Do we really need a perfect coronavirus test for everyone? We don't have it and it is my guess that we will never have a perfect test for everyone. Given a little taste of reality, what should we be doing? If you think about it, we already do have several tests for the coronavirus right here under our noses. Here are some examples"
(1) Have you been near or touched a person who has the virus?
(2) Do you have a temperature?
(3) Do you have any other symptoms that look like flu?
(4) Are you older than 60 years of age?
(5) Is you immune system compromised in any way?
(6) Have you traveled to an area that has the virus?
It seems to me that the six questions above amount to a test. Do you think that the answers to the questions above would lead any doctor to start treating you as if you had the virus? You know it would. Now, let's see what the treatment actions would be. Would they be any different if you had tested positive? I don't think so. As far as I know, the treatment for the coronavirus is no different from how you would be treated if you had one of the known forms of the flu. Interesting isn't when you look what happens if you have or did not have the test.
Is there really any difference between a self quarantine and a "forced quarantine? I don't see any. Do you? Look at your own personal actions. If you had a positive test for the virus, would that mean you could stop washing your hands? Further, if you had a negative test for the virus, would that mean you could attend sports events? Are you starting to see that your actions with and without the test are 99% the same? That gives you and idea of how significant the test is. It is human nature to want some thing that they can not have or feel what they can't have is the answer to their fear. Does that sound like the type of logic that our children use at the dinner table?
Why don't we all stop wishing for "perfect" solutions when we must know that "perfect" solutions do not exist for most things! How about some maturity here!
PS--It sounds like the government has started a web site where you can go and take a test similar to the six tests that I described above to get a score that you can use to determine what action you should take. That score will also be used by our government to to guide them on their help to you.
PS--I just bounced this off some of my friends who are familiar with Bayes Theorem. They pointed out that the test is not 100% accurate. It shows people have the virus when they don't and shows that they don't have the virus when they do. Once the virus gets beyond a small percentage of the population the strategy shifts from testing and tracing to prevention and treatment of those infected and that is where we are now here in the USA.
Do we really need a perfect coronavirus test for everyone? We don't have it and it is my guess that we will never have a perfect test for everyone. Given a little taste of reality, what should we be doing? If you think about it, we already do have several tests for the coronavirus right here under our noses. Here are some examples"
(1) Have you been near or touched a person who has the virus?
(2) Do you have a temperature?
(3) Do you have any other symptoms that look like flu?
(4) Are you older than 60 years of age?
(5) Is you immune system compromised in any way?
(6) Have you traveled to an area that has the virus?
It seems to me that the six questions above amount to a test. Do you think that the answers to the questions above would lead any doctor to start treating you as if you had the virus? You know it would. Now, let's see what the treatment actions would be. Would they be any different if you had tested positive? I don't think so. As far as I know, the treatment for the coronavirus is no different from how you would be treated if you had one of the known forms of the flu. Interesting isn't when you look what happens if you have or did not have the test.
Is there really any difference between a self quarantine and a "forced quarantine? I don't see any. Do you? Look at your own personal actions. If you had a positive test for the virus, would that mean you could stop washing your hands? Further, if you had a negative test for the virus, would that mean you could attend sports events? Are you starting to see that your actions with and without the test are 99% the same? That gives you and idea of how significant the test is. It is human nature to want some thing that they can not have or feel what they can't have is the answer to their fear. Does that sound like the type of logic that our children use at the dinner table?
Why don't we all stop wishing for "perfect" solutions when we must know that "perfect" solutions do not exist for most things! How about some maturity here!
PS--It sounds like the government has started a web site where you can go and take a test similar to the six tests that I described above to get a score that you can use to determine what action you should take. That score will also be used by our government to to guide them on their help to you.
PS--I just bounced this off some of my friends who are familiar with Bayes Theorem. They pointed out that the test is not 100% accurate. It shows people have the virus when they don't and shows that they don't have the virus when they do. Once the virus gets beyond a small percentage of the population the strategy shifts from testing and tracing to prevention and treatment of those infected and that is where we are now here in the USA.
