Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’
by worker767424 on Saturday December 19, 2020 @04:03PM
(#25481175)
I need to see a citation for that. My gut tells be that if people had mostly accurate at-home tests they took ~daily, it would actually reduce spread massively, especially when it can be asymptomatic.
Re:New York Times retracts core of podcast series ‘Caliphate’
by maxerickson on Saturday December 19, 2020 @05:02PM
(#25481656)
I'm sure that would have impact, but it isn't what you described above, you described advertising more locations and capacity to make people feel better about visits and gatherings.
I also expect that compliance wouldn't be all that high for at home testing (people skipping tests, deciding they still feel good enough, etc). It doesn't mean we shouldn't try to establish that access for people that would use it well though.
Also, there's a difference between working to increase testing so that more people do get tested before a holiday and making that the center of your message. They need to be careful to not mislead or give the impression that they are misleading, but they could limit the messaging to a statement about working to expand testing.
You need tests and periods of isolation, with the periods of isolation being the more important component (that many people don't have much ability to choose right now).
What happens a lot is that people get tested, think they are safe, then after becoming infectious spend a bunch of time with people.
So advertising expanded testing isn't really a viable public health message.