Why is testing not part of the reopening plan?

[Anonymous]

What are you all talking about. What kind of a group of people would say that asymptomatic testing is a waste of money? Disgusting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are you all talking about. What kind of a group of people would say that asymptomatic testing is a waste of money? Disgusting.

can you explain? do you think there is some kind of moral mandate to do surveillance testing? I don’t understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are you all talking about. What kind of a group of people would say that asymptomatic testing is a waste of money? Disgusting.

^This person is basing their opinion on testing in some sort of morality argument, instead of science and thinking logically about costs and benefits.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you all talking about. What kind of a group of people would say that asymptomatic testing is a waste of money? Disgusting.

can you explain? do you think there is some kind of moral mandate to do surveillance testing? I don’t understand.

jinx lol

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What are you all talking about. What kind of a group of people would say that asymptomatic testing is a waste of money? Disgusting.

Well, if you could had $10K, and you could use it to stop 50 infections or 1 infection, you'd probably use it to stop 50 infections.

[Anonymous]

The money is best spent on vaccinations. This is true. But asymptomatic testing can play a role to fill in gaps and for children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The money is best spent on vaccinations. This is true. But asymptomatic testing can play a role to fill in gaps and for children.

No. It’s basically useless. Tell me about Covid cases it’s prevented.

[Anonymous]

Most of the studies done so far have been in medical settings, but together, they suggest that asymptomatic testing in low-prevalence contexts has minimal utility. Symptomatic screening seems to be more useful and cost-effective.

If we're going to spend money on surveillance testing, wastewater testing is a better bet.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you all talking about. What kind of a group of people would say that asymptomatic testing is a waste of money? Disgusting.

can you explain? do you think there is some kind of moral mandate to do surveillance testing? I don’t understand.

DP: I think it's a good idea to get regular data from a widespread diverse stable population to monitor spread and variants. This would enable us to better deploy resources, adapt faster to changing circumstances and get a more accurate picture of prevalence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Most of the studies done so far have been in medical settings, but together, they suggest that asymptomatic testing in low-prevalence contexts has minimal utility. Symptomatic screening seems to be more useful and cost-effective.

If we're going to spend money on surveillance testing, wastewater testing is a better bet.

This.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the studies done so far have been in medical settings, but together, they suggest that asymptomatic testing in low-prevalence contexts has minimal utility. Symptomatic screening seems to be more useful and cost-effective.

If we're going to spend money on surveillance testing, wastewater testing is a better bet.

This.

Wastewater testing is cheaper and logistically easier but not as good since it's aggregated and diffuse. Of course proper testing at schools is not really being proposed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Most of the studies done so far have been in medical settings, but together, they suggest that asymptomatic testing in low-prevalence contexts has minimal utility. Symptomatic screening seems to be more useful and cost-effective.

If we're going to spend money on surveillance testing, wastewater testing is a better bet.

This.

Wastewater testing is cheaper and logistically easier but not as good since it's aggregated and diffuse. Of course proper testing at schools is not really being proposed.

Testing random asymptomatic people ONLY in schools does not tell us as much about community spread, which is what really matters. Like, if they want to do pooled testing, fine. But it's just a waste of money to examine every individual sample, especially when the prevalence rate is fairly low.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you all talking about. What kind of a group of people would say that asymptomatic testing is a waste of money? Disgusting.

can you explain? do you think there is some kind of moral mandate to do surveillance testing? I don’t understand.

DP: I think it's a good idea to get regular data from a widespread diverse stable population to monitor spread and variants. This would enable us to better deploy resources, adapt faster to changing circumstances and get a more accurate picture of prevalence.

...school attendees are not a representative sample of the DC population, though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you all talking about. What kind of a group of people would say that asymptomatic testing is a waste of money? Disgusting.

can you explain? do you think there is some kind of moral mandate to do surveillance testing? I don’t understand.

DP: I think it's a good idea to get regular data from a widespread diverse stable population to monitor spread and variants. This would enable us to better deploy resources, adapt faster to changing circumstances and get a more accurate picture of prevalence.

...school attendees are not a representative sample of the DC population, though.

It's as good a representative sampling as one could ever get. Is it perfect, no. But it would be geographically, economically and demographically diverse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What are you all talking about. What kind of a group of people would say that asymptomatic testing is a waste of money? Disgusting.

can you explain? do you think there is some kind of moral mandate to do surveillance testing? I don’t understand.

DP: I think it's a good idea to get regular data from a widespread diverse stable population to monitor spread and variants. This would enable us to better deploy resources, adapt faster to changing circumstances and get a more accurate picture of prevalence.

...school attendees are not a representative sample of the DC population, though.

It's as good a representative sampling as one could ever get. Is it perfect, no. But it would be geographically, economically and demographically diverse.

oh god no. you need to take a statistics class.