[pefloresjr]

  Pence having tested negative completely ignores the science that he could have become infected and contagious before it shows up in a test. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for so clearly making the case for why this monomaniacal focus on testing, testing, testing is so ridiculous.  It will never be possible to test everyone literally at the same time, nor to get all test results back instantaneously [and at the same time], nor to enforce a mandatory fourteen day quarantine of everyone so that the negative testers have no possible way of coming in contact with the positive testers.  Accordingly, insisting on testing as the solution [and using it as the rationale for continuing to impose a drastic lockdown] "completely ignores the science that [someone who has tested negative] could have become infected and contagious before it shows up in a test."  

I have yet to see anyone explain why someone without symptoms would benefit in any manner -- or, apparently, be permitted to change his/her behavior in any manner even in the event of a negative test  -- from taking a test.  According to scientists, this may even be true with respect to antibody tests, since it hasn't been shown yet that the existence of antibodies is also evidence of immunity from reinfection.

I'm not against testing. It provides data, and more data is always better than less.  In fact, I certainly hope some group of scientists is doing whatever they can to get tests of all the folks on the beaches in Southern California or at those demonstrations, or at that Hassidic funeral in New York City -- all of those places where, presumably, massive hot spots are about to break out as a result of the highly criticized behavior ove rthe past few days.  If [hopefully] that doesn't happen, that would be very helpful to know.  As things stand right now, based on what the "scientists" say, we should expect to see a spike.

In fact, everyone who came in contact with VP Pence at the Mayo Clinic should be watched and, if no one develops COVID that can be traced to him, then will you be willing to admit he put no one in danger?

Not sure if this is all directed to me for a response but I can answer your last question.  If Pence didn't infect anyone at the Mayo Clinic, I would absolutely admit that he put no one in direct danger.  However, that could only be knowable in retrospect and would be meaningless regarding any future contacts he were to have with others.  Saying he did no direct harm on one visit has absolutely no relation to whether he might be doing harm in other visits, so I'm not sure of what the point of that question is.  

The question of direct harm also ignores the potential great harm caused by our leaders undermining even the simplest of actions that Americans can take everyday to help limit the risk posed to themselves and others.  Wearing a mask isn't costing people jobs or causing anything beyond a minor annoyance for most.  (For me it steams up my glasses when I'm walking my dog, others with breathing difficulties have a different calculus, but Pence doesn't have either of those issues, serious or negligible.)  That is what bothers me most about his decision to not wear a mask in a hospital.  Whatever his motivations, I find it terrible that he was unwilling to take the smallest of measures to provide leadership to Americans as we try to find ways to deal with this.  

As for the testing, it is not all the same.  The testing I care most about at this point, is the ability to quickly test those with symptoms to find out if they have COVID19.  I think that will be crucial in keeping the outbreak levels within normal (not the recent deferral of nearly all other medical services) healthcare capacity.  If we have enough testing, we can use the contact tracing and two week quarantine to try to limit and mitigate hot spots.  Long term more data will be needed to know our level of herd immunity or lack thereof along with the success of potential vaccines.  

I think it is really important for those from the many perspectives here (and there really are many perspectives) to acknowledge that the scientists are making their best projections based on what we know so far.  I am fine with policy makers being conservative with regard to potential loss of lives and resulting economic damage until the information shows we can ease up on the conservative precautions.  The scientists and policy makers I try to pay most attention to are those who are regularly adjusting their models based on the evidence and who have not staked out a strong public position that they refuse to alter.  

Cheers,
Pete F.

[pefloresjr]

  Pence having tested negative completely ignores the science that he could have become infected and contagious before it shows up in a test. 

Cheers,
Pete F.

Thank you, thank you, thank you for so clearly making the case for why this monomaniacal focus on testing, testing, testing is so ridiculous.  It will never be possible to test everyone literally at the same time, nor to get all test results back instantaneously [and at the same time], nor to enforce a mandatory fourteen day quarantine of everyone so that the negative testers have no possible way of coming in contact with the positive testers.  Accordingly, insisting on testing as the solution [and using it as the rationale for continuing to impose a drastic lockdown] "completely ignores the science that [someone who has tested negative] could have become infected and contagious before it shows up in a test."  

I have yet to see anyone explain why someone without symptoms would benefit in any manner -- or, apparently, be permitted to change his/her behavior in any manner even in the event of a negative test  -- from taking a test.  According to scientists, this may even be true with respect to antibody tests, since it hasn't been shown yet that the existence of antibodies is also evidence of immunity from reinfection.

I'm not against testing. It provides data, and more data is always better than less.  In fact, I certainly hope some group of scientists is doing whatever they can to get tests of all the folks on the beaches in Southern California or at those demonstrations, or at that Hassidic funeral in New York City -- all of those places where, presumably, massive hot spots are about to break out as a result of the highly criticized behavior ove rthe past few days.  If [hopefully] that doesn't happen, that would be very helpful to know.  As things stand right now, based on what the "scientists" say, we should expect to see a spike.

In fact, everyone who came in contact with VP Pence at the Mayo Clinic should be watched and, if no one develops COVID that can be traced to him, then will you be willing to admit he put no one in danger?

Not sure if this is all directed to me for a response but I can answer your last question.  If Pence didn't infect anyone at the Mayo Clinic, I would absolutely admit that he put no one in direct danger.  However, that could only be knowable in retrospect and would be meaningless regarding any future contacts he were to have with others.  Saying he did no direct harm on one visit has absolutely no relation to whether he might be doing harm in other visits, so I'm not sure of what the point of that question is.  

The question of direct harm also ignores the potential great harm caused by our leaders undermining even the simplest of actions that Americans can take everyday to help limit the risk posed to themselves and others.  Wearing a mask isn't costing people jobs or causing anything beyond a minor annoyance for most.  (For me it steams up my glasses when I'm walking my dog, others with breathing difficulties have a different calculus, but Pence doesn't have either of those issues, serious or negligible.)  That is what bothers me most about his decision to not wear a mask in a hospital.  Whatever his motivations, I find it terrible that he was unwilling to take the smallest of measures to provide leadership to Americans as we try to find ways to deal with this.  

As for the testing, it is not all the same.  The testing I care most about at this point, is the ability to quickly test those with symptoms to find out if they have COVID19.  I think that will be crucial in keeping the outbreak levels within normal (not the recent deferral of nearly all other medical services) healthcare capacity.  If we have enough testing, we can use the contact tracing and two week quarantine to try to limit and mitigate hot spots.  Long term more data will be needed to know our level of herd immunity or lack thereof along with the success of potential vaccines.  

I think it is really important for those from the many perspectives here (and there really are many perspectives) to acknowledge that the scientists are making their best projections based on what we know so far.  I am fine with policy makers being conservative with regard to potential loss of lives and resulting economic damage until the information shows we can ease up on the conservative precautions.  The scientists and policy makers I try to pay most attention to are those who are regularly adjusting their models based on the evidence and who have not staked out a strong public position that they refuse to alter.  

Cheers,
Pete F.