[JonWilliams]

Paul Romer proposes a massive test and isolate program as a pathway to reopening the economy, and shows how the cost is more than offset by the value of getting people back to normal activities. https://roadmap.paulromer.net/paulro...map-report.pdf

[chet2020]

Originally Posted by JonWilliams

Paul Romer proposes a massive test and isolate program as a pathway to reopening the economy, and shows how the cost is more than offset by the value of getting people back to normal activities. https://roadmap.paulromer.net/paulro...map-report.pdf

I'm surprised there is not more interest in this post. As an elderly population, we pretty much have no choice but to practice social distancing until there's a cure or there's a vaccine. This gives us a way out. The cost is minuscule compared to what we've already been doling out. Added benefit, we'd have a plan and we'd have some hope.

[Velvet]

Easy to read plan, worthy of a Nobel laureate. Until there is a vaccine or good treatment this plan seems feasible. What it assumes is though that we have tests which can identify Covid in a person pre symptoms. Is there such a test? Next, can we produce enough of these tests? How often would we need to test the same person?

[chet2020]

Originally Posted by Velvet

Easy to read plan, worthy of a Nobel laureate. Until there is a vaccine or good treatment this plan seems feasible. What it assumes is though that we have tests which can identify Covid in a person pre symptoms. Is there such a test? Next, can we produce enough of these tests? How often would we need to test the same person?

Yes, we have the test. No, we don't have the capacity. Romer wants 22 million tests per day (we currently are under 1 million tests per day). Nobody said getting out of this mess would be easy. However, he points out the between Roche and Abbott alone, if they built enough analyzers, we could do 22 million tests per day. Bend some metal. Everyone in the U.S. would be tested once every two weeks. Total cost to ramp up and execute would be $150 billion. Seems like a bargain to be virus free and the economy full-steam ahead. We've spent $2 trillion thus far and are just treading water.

[Travelhunter]

Sounds like a good plan. Not sure it’s feasible. I can be negative on the day one test. Contract the virus on day 3 and spread the illness until the next test.
We need treatments and vaccines

[chet2020]

Originally Posted by Travelhunter

Sounds like a good plan. Not sure it’s feasible. I can be negative on the day one test. Contract the virus on day 3 and spread the illness until the next test.
We need treatments and vaccines

Romer's plan tests you every two weeks until the virus is wiped out. But it's reasonable to argue we should spend money on treatments and vaccines. I'd like to see some money spent on testing programs as a plan B. Our age group is the one that is absolutely screwed if treatments and vaccines take longer than expected.

[Topspinmo]

Originally Posted by chet2020

Yes, we have the test. No, we don't have the capacity. Romer wants 22 million tests per day (we currently are under 1 million tests per day). Nobody said getting out of this mess would be easy. However, he points out the between Roche and Abbott alone, if they built enough analyzers, we could do 22 million tests per day. Bend some metal. Everyone in the U.S. would be tested once every two weeks. Total cost to ramp up and execute would be $150 billion. Seems like a bargain to be virus free and the economy full-steam ahead. We've spent $2 trillion thus far and are just treading water.

So, if I get tested today good, get infected tomorrow, how many people can I infect is 13 day before the next test?

[Altavia]

Originally Posted by Topspinmo

So, if I get tested today good, get infected tomorrow, how many people can I infect is 13 day before the next test?

If you are asystematic and test positive today, how many people do you prevent infecting by self quarantining?

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Robbie0723

If you are asystematic and test positive today, how many people do you prevent infecting by self quarantining?

The perfect is the enemy of the good.

If you are symptomatic and false-test negative, and your neighbor is asymptomatic and tests negative, but she catches it from you the day after your negative test comes in...and she spreads it to hundreds of people now that the state is re-opened...

the good isn't good enough.

[chet2020]

Originally Posted by OrangeBlossomBaby

If you are symptomatic and false-test negative, and your neighbor is asymptomatic and tests negative, but she catches it from you the day after your negative test comes in...and she spreads it to hundreds of people now that the state is re-opened...

the good isn't good enough.

We practice social distancing leading up to and during the first four weeks of the plan. Your scenario would be quite "unlucky," but the hot spot would be identified within two weeks. We'd also be "lucky" in other situations and clear large areas. False negatives are included in the plan.

Many people propose releasing everyone, right now. Only symptomatic carriers will be tested - if they are lucky. How do you think that is going to work out with your neighbor walking around?

[Rapscallion St Croix]

Using the Nobel Prize as a standard of credibility is like using Wikipedia to prove a point.

[JoelJohnson]

"1) Test everyone to find out who is infectious.
2) Isolate them.
3) Continue testing, and continue isolating."

Yes, China did that by dragging people out of their home anyone who tested positive for the virus and locking them up.

[chet2020]

Originally Posted by Rapscallion St Croix

Using the Nobel Prize as a standard of credibility is like using Wikipedia to prove a point.

Noble Prize winners, what a bunch of losers, amiright?