[Goose]

Goose, I know you are a really smart person, but, it's really time to stop bending over backwards to find the evidence-based position in the current Executive Branch.
<snip>
Now, having said all that, on the topic of asymptomatic testing that you spent a fair amount of energy trying to find a justification for not doing

OF, I started off what I wrote saying that essentially everybody opining on this issue was not being data driven. The CDC and their critics are both equally guilty. I presented a method to determine if immediately testing contacts was worthwhile. I spent no energy at all trying to find a justification for not immediately testing all contacts. What I did do is spend energy attempting to define under what conditions doing such testing was advisable. If you (or anybody else) want to point out why my analysis is incorrect I would like to hear it.
You seem to think what I wrote serves an agenda. It may be it does, but since I don't know what "P" is in any jurisdiction, it is unclear how that could be true. It is also possible that something written to serve an agenda can actually be correct. If you think I made an error, it would be good to know what that error is, but why I wrote what I did is irrelevant. It is either valid or it isn't.
By now, in this epidemic, every jurisdiction should know what "P" is in their area under the previous guidelines. Without knowing that, deciding to test or not test is a matter of opinion, nothing more. It may be that waiting a few days and testing reveals many more asymptomatic positives. The trade-off would then be delay vs. yield. In any case, we need to optimize our actions by something other than people "gut feel" IMHO.

[Goose]

Goose, I know you are a really smart person, but, it's really time to stop bending over backwards to find the evidence-based position in the current Executive Branch.
<snip>
Now, having said all that, on the topic of asymptomatic testing that you spent a fair amount of energy trying to find a justification for not doing

OF, I started off what I wrote saying that essentially everybody opining on this issue was not being data driven. The CDC and their critics are both equally guilty. I presented a method to determine if immediately testing contacts was worthwhile. I spent no energy at all trying to find a justification for not immediately testing all contacts. What I did do is spend energy attempting to define under what conditions doing such testing was advisable. If you (or anybody else) want to point out why my analysis is incorrect I would like to hear it.
You seem to think what I wrote serves an agenda. It may be it does, but since I don't know what "P" is in any jurisdiction, it is unclear how that could be true. It is also possible that something written to serve an agenda can actually be correct. If you think I made an error, it would be good to know what that error is, but why I wrote what I did is irrelevant. It is either valid or it isn't.
By now, in this epidemic, every jurisdiction should know what "P" is in their area under the previous guidelines. Without knowing that, deciding to test or not test is a matter of opinion, nothing more. It may be that waiting a few days and testing reveals many more asymptomatic positives. The trade-off would then be delay vs. yield. In any case, we need to optimize our actions by something other than people "gut feel" IMHO.