Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3...
Greetings to all. I suppose my routine is now so far from what it was just a couple of weeks ago that I'm writing this on a Sunday morning, but hope you and yours are all well.
We're hearing a lot about "opening up" our economy and our society. President Trump has been saying for several weeks that we needed to open up. He first said that he wanted to see this occur by Easter Sunday, which was one week ago today. That obviously was too soon, and he eventually let go of that notion. He began saying this again recently, implying that he wanted to see it happen by May 1.
As has been widely reported, he then stated that he had the authority to order the country to resume its normal activities and to order approximately anything else he chose, there was pushback, and then he indicated that the governors of individual states would have that opportunity, but that he would hold them accountable if problems occurred.
This past Thursday he released new guidelines for states to follow in considering whether to lift stay-at-home orders and resume normal activity, in three phases. Most everything outlined seemed to make sense as this made the process somewhat gradual and each state would have the capacity to determine whether it was meeting the benchmarks for each phase.
Then on Friday he took to Twitter and incited additional demonstrations by those loyal to him to demand that restrictions be lifted and people return to their normal lives. He also exhorted that the states needed to ramp up testing in order for this to work. And so the President of the United States apparently is prepared to allow failure on a state-by-state basis.
I read yesterday that a study by Stanford University estimated (broadly, they stated) that there may be 85% more people who have been infected with the coronavirus than have been reported. I think most of us who are wary would agree with this estimate, at least to some extent, that we still don't know how many of our fellow citizens have the virus.
And opening up retail and work and recreational scenarios invites a lot more infection, it seems.
The federal government has not mounted anything close to a systematic and structured testing regime, leaving that task to individual states. And there does not seem to be an indication that this will change. My home state of Kentucky has turned to its universities and to private companies for testing solution, but now the issue seems to be the acquisition of testing swabs (yes, we have a shortage of something like a Q-Tip) and the reagents needed to process test samples. Other states appear to be doing something akin to this.
I know that one of the countering theories references "herd immunity," that people will gain some level of immunity from even indirect exposure to those infected with the coronavirus. The country of Sweden appears to have gambled on this being what will eventually protect its citizens, as there are no specific stay-at-home orders and only recommendations for social distancing.
I don't know. About any of it, really. My wife and I remain largely in our homes, making sporadic trips out for groceries and to get carry-out or drivethrough food from a restaurant occasionally.
I'm in sales, which means that my work entails continual contact with others, ideally in person. If things suddenly open up, I'm not sure how safe or secure I'll feel getting back out there among others again. Most of my contacts are in medical facilities, and as long as they continue to restrict visitors, I'll likely continue to work remotely, so that may be for the best in my case.
I'm lucky.
But others would not have that luxury, and that's the real concern. Balancing financial well-being with tolerable (or less) health risks is not exactly what we all would prefer.
So the next few weeks will inform what happens thereafter, as states will probably follow the three-phase benchmarked plan that the White House released and the metrics of new hospitalizations and testing will hopefully pave the way to an orderly resolution.
We're hearing a lot about "opening up" our economy and our society. President Trump has been saying for several weeks that we needed to open up. He first said that he wanted to see this occur by Easter Sunday, which was one week ago today. That obviously was too soon, and he eventually let go of that notion. He began saying this again recently, implying that he wanted to see it happen by May 1.
As has been widely reported, he then stated that he had the authority to order the country to resume its normal activities and to order approximately anything else he chose, there was pushback, and then he indicated that the governors of individual states would have that opportunity, but that he would hold them accountable if problems occurred.
This past Thursday he released new guidelines for states to follow in considering whether to lift stay-at-home orders and resume normal activity, in three phases. Most everything outlined seemed to make sense as this made the process somewhat gradual and each state would have the capacity to determine whether it was meeting the benchmarks for each phase.
Then on Friday he took to Twitter and incited additional demonstrations by those loyal to him to demand that restrictions be lifted and people return to their normal lives. He also exhorted that the states needed to ramp up testing in order for this to work. And so the President of the United States apparently is prepared to allow failure on a state-by-state basis.
I read yesterday that a study by Stanford University estimated (broadly, they stated) that there may be 85% more people who have been infected with the coronavirus than have been reported. I think most of us who are wary would agree with this estimate, at least to some extent, that we still don't know how many of our fellow citizens have the virus.
And opening up retail and work and recreational scenarios invites a lot more infection, it seems.
The federal government has not mounted anything close to a systematic and structured testing regime, leaving that task to individual states. And there does not seem to be an indication that this will change. My home state of Kentucky has turned to its universities and to private companies for testing solution, but now the issue seems to be the acquisition of testing swabs (yes, we have a shortage of something like a Q-Tip) and the reagents needed to process test samples. Other states appear to be doing something akin to this.
I know that one of the countering theories references "herd immunity," that people will gain some level of immunity from even indirect exposure to those infected with the coronavirus. The country of Sweden appears to have gambled on this being what will eventually protect its citizens, as there are no specific stay-at-home orders and only recommendations for social distancing.
I don't know. About any of it, really. My wife and I remain largely in our homes, making sporadic trips out for groceries and to get carry-out or drivethrough food from a restaurant occasionally.
I'm in sales, which means that my work entails continual contact with others, ideally in person. If things suddenly open up, I'm not sure how safe or secure I'll feel getting back out there among others again. Most of my contacts are in medical facilities, and as long as they continue to restrict visitors, I'll likely continue to work remotely, so that may be for the best in my case.
I'm lucky.
But others would not have that luxury, and that's the real concern. Balancing financial well-being with tolerable (or less) health risks is not exactly what we all would prefer.
So the next few weeks will inform what happens thereafter, as states will probably follow the three-phase benchmarked plan that the White House released and the metrics of new hospitalizations and testing will hopefully pave the way to an orderly resolution.
Comments
Post a Comment