It's not the number of tests, it is the per capita numbers that count. And we wasted all kinds of time developing a new test and slamming other tests that actually worked well enough. Then we introduced ours which failed big time and was produced in amounts so small it was all but useless for prevention. Now it was too late to control the pandemic.
Next, we turned it over to the private sector so we now have a bunch of tests, some that take 15 minutes to read, others that take hours to days depending, and NONE of the tests in the quantities needed. Back at the start, we either needed to get the existing tests or the rights to manufacture them here, or we needed a kind of Manhattan project to put all our resources into a single effort. Competition in this instance is a bunch of expensive and redundant wasted efforts.
And we are also likely to lose the vaccine race to Oz with our short-sightedness and ego. I wish California well, but Oz is doing some very interesting things to shorten the linear strategy for vaccine development.
If we intelligently approached the economic challenges here, we would see that the most economically advantageous strategy would have been to get control of the epidemic quickly by testing widely and then get into production of a good vaccine for worldwide production. Isn't the first thing they teach economics students is to find ways to take advantage of the situation in which you find yourself instead of wasting effort to get the economy back to what it was first when that place that wasn't all that much to start with? Pillars of salt come to mind.
Monona
-----Original Message-----
From: Zack Mansdorf <mansdorfz**At_Symbol_Here**BELLSOUTH.NET>
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Sent: Fri, Apr 10, 2020 4:25 pm
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Ask Dr. Safety: Recovery and Contingency - A Virtual Symposium Wednesday Evening April 15th
Monna:
First, we actually have tested more people than any other country in the world. Some of the testing in some countries (such as China) had poor reliability. Antibodies normally indicate that you are over the infection if you are walking around versus being treated and I am not aware of any test for "shedding".. Tests for having the infection would not make sense if you have no symptoms (it is not practical to test 320 million people). Having a negative test on Tuesday, means you do not have the virus on Tuesday. Maybe you get it Wednesday.
Zack
From: ACS Division of Chemical Health and Safety <DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU> On Behalf Of Monona Rossol
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2020 2:38 PM
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Ask Dr. Safety: Recovery and Contingency - A Virtual Symposium Wednesday Evening April 15th
Gee, how about we test people? There are tests for shedding, tests for anitbodies (doesn't mean you still aren't shedding) and tests for just plain having the virus. We see a lot more testing in other countries. You can't fix what you can't track.. Monona
-----Original Message-----
To: DCHAS-L**At_Symbol_Here**PRINCETON.EDU
Sent: Fri, Apr 10, 2020 11:33 am
Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] Ask Dr. Safety: Recovery and Contingency - A Virtual Symposium Wednesday Evening April 15th
While it is true that perhaps as much as 50% or those infected are asymptomatic, what else can be done as a screen in the absence of a readily available quick turn-around test for the virus or antibodies?
Temperature screening was more effective with SARS-1 since it looked like the asymptomatic were not infectious.
At least a temperature screen will identify _some_ of those infected. These days, the perfect cannot be the enemy of the "sort-of OK.."
That sounds about right on the PPE, with the mask an N95 if possible. But the policy is flawed because the asymptomatic carriers will waltz through your test and into the building. Monona
WE ARE INSTITUTING A MANADATORY TEMPERATURE BE TAKEN OF EVERY PERSON ENTERING OUR BUILDING. THE QUESTION CAME UP AFTER WE PURCHASED THE TEMORAL THERMOMETERS, WHAT SHOULD THE PPE BE FOR THIS PERSON? OBVIOUSLY THEY CANT BE 6 FEET APART.
OUR SHORT ANSWERT WAS LAB COAT, MASK, FACE SHIELD AND GLOVES.
ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS FOR NON MEDICAL FACILITIES?
Michael I. Schaffer, Ph.D., F.A.B.F.T., NRCC-TC
(800) 522-7424 (toll free) Extension 140
*** CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE ***
THIS ELECTRONIC MAIL TRANSMISSION AND THE DOCUMENTS ACCOMPANYING IT CONTAIN INFORMATION BEING SENT BY PSYCHEMEDICS CORPORATION AND MAY CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED, CONFIDENTIAL AND/OR EXEMPT FROM DISCLOSURE. The information is intended only for the use of the person(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or the taking of any action in reliance on the contents of this information is strictly prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by telephone at (800) 522-7424 and delete/destroy all copies. Your receipt of this message is not intended to waive confidentiality or any privilege. The above name and title are not intended to constitute any form of signature.
This Message Originated Outside the Company
Last night, Neal and I hosted a version of "Ask Dr. Safety" and it was a hit - so much so that people wanted more and they told us what they wanted to talk about: Recovery and Contingency planning for post-COVID-19 activities.
So, Wednesday, April 15th, 9PM Eastern (8PM Central, 7PM Mountain, 6PM Pacific) we will be having a second round of Ask Dr. Safety on Google Meet.
Harry J. Elston, Ph.D., CIH, PMP
Principal, Midwest Chemical Safety
Standard confidentiality terms apply to this e-mail message.
