2020-04-17nytimes.com

But there is no requirement that states first show that they have tested enough people to establish that the trajectories they are seeing are truly reflective of population-level trends. Overall, testing has been far too low for these trajectories to be relied on. Even after six weeks, barely 1 percent of the country's population has been tested for Covid-19 and new daily tests have plateaued around 150,000. This is also not enough testing for effective levels of contact tracing.

More important, the plan calls for measuring a relative decline, and not an absolute threshold for very limited spread. So there could be a 14-day decline and yet the number of new cases could still be too high. We need a firm threshold, such as 20 new cases per one million people, that ensures a low number of new coronavirus cases when we start to re-open.

Another big concern with the plan is that, like the current C.D.C. testing guidelines, it still focuses on testing symptomatic people. If we are to stop the spread, the focus has to broaden to asymptomatic coronavirus-infected people who can be unwitting super-spreaders and ignite a resurgence.

...

Finally, nothing is mentioned in the "Opening Up America Again" plan about how states should handle a resurgence. There is no guidance on defining a significant uptick in cases or how to respond. As Dr. Anthony Fauci mentioned in the press briefing announcing the plan, there may be instances where states must "pull back." But what does pulling back entail? How will states know when to do this? There is no guidance.

The guidelines also task states with "independently" securing personal protective equipment and key equipment such as ventilators, despite the fact that the federal government has intervened calamitously in this supply chain.



Comments: Be the first to add a comment

add a comment | go to forum thread