A comment (to complement some parallel threads from @michaelmina_lab) on the value of rapid testing, even if it is imperfect. So how do you re open say... movie theaters in the midst of a pandemic where anyone could be infected, and many are at risk of fatal outcomes? 1/n
So bad things are that most movies theaters are indoors, probably poorly ventilated. Crowds. Lots of opportunities for close contact. A person at the peak of infectiousness could kick off a Superspreader event 2/n
If you could present reliable evidence you have been -ve in the last 24 hrs, well that would obviously be transformative. But wait - what if that test result is a false negative and there is a resulting false sense of security? That’s where the masks come in 3/n
Even if an infectious person somehow makes their way into the movie theater, a mask is expected to really limit their transmission to other patrons. Result is a serious risk of transmission is cut to minimal. There’s not a single approach. They work together. They synergise 4/n
And such tests do exist. This is one example. What does *not* exist is access. They should be where they are needed
https://twitter.com/baym/status/1328900203987005441?s=215/n
https://twitter.com/baym/status/1328900203987005441
There are ways to control the pandemic better. We need to *want* to control it better. We’ve done the obvious pandemic management really badly. I’d love it if we could do the less obvious, innovative part well 6/end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
