Coronavirus SZN Forever

[MBGreen]

Sure. But to return to the point, in that environment testing is pointless because if testing is optional then the data tells you absolutely nothing. You'll have people who are symptomatic and clearly have covid not reporting it because they're either staying home and letting it pass as they've been told to, or ignoring it and going out there spreading it; and you'll have people who given the opportunity would get tested every day regardless of whether they have any symptoms or not, because it speaks to their caution / paranoia / hypochondria / whatever. The data produced by an optional testing regimen is absolutely worthless, and the decisions that individuals make about testing and in the face of the results will be completely varied and therefore useless.

moral of the story:  have better testing structures in place. 

Until science develops an effective antiviral for the public..."throwing in the towel" isn't a viable solution.  I don't care if people are whining to go back to "normal", freak them.  Everyone has the right to feel safe.

[Johnny English]

moral of the story:  have better testing structures in place. 

Until science develops an effective antiviral for the public..."throwing in the towel" isn't a viable solution.  I don't care if people are whining to go back to "normal", freak them.  Everyone has the right to feel safe.

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the situation, I'm fully aware of your views on it. I'm just talking about why individual testing is now pointless as an exercise in informing anything.

[MBGreen]

I'm not arguing the rights and wrongs of the situation, I'm fully aware of your views on it. I'm just talking about why individual testing is now pointless as an exercise in informing anything.

and I agree with you...it is pointless in our current climate.  But the gov't put us in this position.

[Badger]

But you don't need to subsidise pointless behaviours.

As long as people are being required to test for one thing or another then it's not pointless.

If/when we reach a point that all testing requirements are dropped then you can stop subsidizing.

[Johnny English]

As long as people are being required to test for one thing or another then it's not pointless.

If/when we reach a point that all testing requirements are dropped then you can stop subsidizing.

What are you still required to test for? I agree that if a test result is a government mandated condition of entry or access for something, then the government should probably be paying for it. If a business has it as their own condition then it's probably between the business and their clientele to figure out who should be paying for it.

We don't even have vaccine status as a condition of access any more, testing is long since done with.

[SixFeetDeep]

Testing is not pointless for everyone. Even if you think so, the argument for the government not paying for it is pretty weak.

[delavan]

https://youtu.be/iuWx8hCMw-o

[dcm1602]

Testing is not pointless for everyone. Even if you think so, the argument for the government not paying for it is pretty weak.

Unless you think the government should pay for everything healthcare related forever  (which is an entirely different argument) at some point eventually testing for covid becomes a basic medical test rather than some pandemic fighting measure.

I don't follow this excrement on a global scale, but I do know that covid has become virtually irrelevant in the region I'm in.

Hell this month is the first time we don't even have the  anti vaxxer corpses that are normally rotting on vents and ECMO for months at a time.

(that said I'd be willing to bet there's probably gonna be another decent size wave, so you can easily make a strong argument that they should still be paying for test)

[bojanglesman]

You got any a dem tests bayby?

[Johnny English]

Testing is not pointless for everyone. Even if you think so, the argument for the government not paying for it is pretty weak.

As a public health exercise it is completely pointless. There are situations in which individual testing will be merited, but those are decisions for medical personnel to make.

There's no sensible argument that I can see for the government funding discretionary testing.

[dcm1602]

As a public health exercise it is completely pointless. There are situations in which individual testing will be merited, but those are decisions for medical personnel to make.

There's no sensible argument that I can see for the government funding discretionary testing.

One could make the argument that the government funding excessive uncessary testing would encourage excessive testing.

Which depending on the direction of the disease and pandemic could potentially save government funding if it curtails even a minute percentage of the population getting infected

Of course I wouldn't expect anyone in the government to give a excrement enoguh to do the math, because derp money free

[MBGreen]

https://winnipegsun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-what-you-need-to-know-about-game-changer-covid-drug-paxlovid/wcm/a40694e3-f8f8-44d5-a949-6a284d92d60b

[Johnny English]

https://winnipegsun.com/opinion/columnists/furey-what-you-need-to-know-about-game-changer-covid-drug-paxlovid/wcm/a40694e3-f8f8-44d5-a949-6a284d92d60b

I'm a little confused. I thought that this was supposed to be a reactive treatment i.e. to be used when people present with a positive case of covid, especially people who have higher risk of serious effects, but the article reads as if it's a prophylactic treatment.

[MBGreen]

I'm a little confused. I thought that this was supposed to be a reactive treatment i.e. to be used when people present with a positive case of covid, especially people who have higher risk of serious effects, but the article reads as if it's a prophylactic treatment.

I read it like if you're a high risk (immuno, elderly etc etc) and you start to show symptoms.  This drug, if taken early enough, will attack the virus.

[Johnny English]

I read it like if you're a high risk (immuno, elderly etc etc) and you start to show symptoms.  This drug, if taken early enough, will attack the virus.

Yeah, that's my understanding as well but they're talking about preventing low risk people from barging their way to the front of the queue; if it's a treatment requiring prescription then it's not really a matter of jumping queues, it's for qualified doctors to decide whether it's merited for each case.