> we have no way to stop the spread at the moment.
Sure we do, universal, rapid result testing with isolation and contact tracing of positives. It works fine and is minimally invasive, and preserves the economy. First you get the exponential growth down with a shutdown, then only allow those who are tested to resume activity. If we had done it at the start we wouldn't have ever had exponential growth to begin with.
When you really dig into what you wrote, my feeling is you're not describing a solution that's feasible in large countries, short of (very) authoritarian enforcement.
Keep in mind, for example, that the US is not technically under quarantine at the moment. And there are plenty of examples of people across the country recklessly defying the advisories.
The virus is especially virulent and controlling it in the way you describe requires stamping it out totally with extreme measures. We know that if even one case remains in the general population, it's just a matter of time before we're once again under pandemic threat.
While this is true - with enough testing capacity, you could stamp out a new hot spot through a combination of local testing and local restrictions, and get it done before the healthcare system is overcome. Especially if we implement something like china did where you have to "check in" at businesses with your phone.
At least in less-dense areas of the country if people stay somewhat social distanced
i.e., if one case shows up in my town of 25,000 people - we could test everyone that possibly had any contact with that person and likely require a couple hundred tests. If those measures fail, you implement a more local lock-down much sooner, test more aggressively, and then ease up again locally.
Except that is not happening - and test kits are not around or in supply.
At some point you push past what's possible to manage, and I think we're there at this point.
It is technically reasonable to test everyone once a day, and quarantine the positives - but it cannot literally happen here in the next few weeks. The vice president just said, "Do not get a test if you don't have symptoms - to preserve them for the sickest people."
> It is technically reasonable to test everyone once a day, and quarantine the positives - but it cannot literally happen here in the next few weeks. The vice president just said, "Do not get a test if you don't have symptoms - to preserve them for the sickest people."
I'm not sure we can rely on that. It sounds like tests on asymptomatic carriers aren't reliable.
"The tests looks for the viral RNA by RT-PCR. This is a test based on viral RNA from swabs of nose and throat. Corona-symptoms appear due to viral replication destroying cells which we cough or snees/snot out."
https://twitter.com/_Adora_Belle_/status/1237704056489082880
Sure we do, universal, rapid result testing with isolation and contact tracing of positives. It works fine and is minimally invasive, and preserves the economy. First you get the exponential growth down with a shutdown, then only allow those who are tested to resume activity. If we had done it at the start we wouldn't have ever had exponential growth to begin with.