grunge
Well-Known Member
discussion point; why are we spending £40bn on a mass testing programme?
Why not just treat and test those who need to come to hospital? why bother testing the populace at large?
so we can find the hotspots and clamp down? well, given that every single reactionary policy has come as the case numbers have been falling, as in Liverpool, Manchester, Lancashire, London didnt even rise, then i'd say they've been a bit pointless.
why not spend £40bn on other public health like nurses, clinics, ICU beds etc.
i've become very jaded with the testing programme, it seems like a LOT of public money being thrown after something that wont change much - those who need to go to hospital will.
there are a few points for me,
1) is just raw data knowing a pretty much exact figure of how many people in the population have it. Id like to see them do antibody tests too at this point to get a really clear view of it.
2) testing a whole population of a city you will catch pretty much all cases, symptomatic or not ( as well as some who have had it and cleared it but still have remnants of the virus in there system.
that will allow for everyone to really know they need to isolate for the 2 weeks and in theory 2/3 weeks after testing the whole city you end up with cases plummeting as in theory you catch pretty much all cases and stop them there and then.
of course this depends on people doing the right thing if they get a diagnosis.