Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
CV 19 When will we take it seriously?
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="donner" data-source="post: 3340613" data-attributes="member: 277"><p>i'm guessing they aren't mutually exclusive, but a test is likely 'faster' since they only have to look for markers (i.e. having any hint of infection gives a better course of action than not having any way of detecting). </p><p></p><p>A test is probably also easier to implement since it wouldn't relay on testing to the same extent (how a vaccination affects men, women, young, old, allergies, etc etc all play into effectiveness and probably can't be rushed).</p><p></p><p>If a test can tell you in 45 minutes if someone has it then you can (hopefully) take immediate steps to isolate those people and keep them from spreading the virus. That alone would help flatten the curve and would also help protect people with compromised immune systems (who likely wont be able to have a vaccination anyway) </p><p></p><p>All that to say, there is a reason for a better mouse trap sometimes</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="donner, post: 3340613, member: 277"] i'm guessing they aren't mutually exclusive, but a test is likely 'faster' since they only have to look for markers (i.e. having any hint of infection gives a better course of action than not having any way of detecting). A test is probably also easier to implement since it wouldn't relay on testing to the same extent (how a vaccination affects men, women, young, old, allergies, etc etc all play into effectiveness and probably can't be rushed). If a test can tell you in 45 minutes if someone has it then you can (hopefully) take immediate steps to isolate those people and keep them from spreading the virus. That alone would help flatten the curve and would also help protect people with compromised immune systems (who likely wont be able to have a vaccination anyway) All that to say, there is a reason for a better mouse trap sometimes [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
CV 19 When will we take it seriously?
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom