04-26-2020, 12:47 PM
I'd rather be wrong and learn from my mistakes than never test my ideas, so I don't mind the criticism or take any umbrage to it.
When I say localized sampling, here's what I was thinking. Say each county gets enough tests to sample 1% of its population every month. They each develop a random sampling method and then when results return, the survey data and doctor-reported data can be given to the epidemiologists and statistical experts to map expected outbreak levels, not past outbreak levels as is done now.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see the value in identifying cases presenting symptoms when the real issue is stopping the spread among those without symptoms.
On a related note, if the saliva test can be produced to give immediate results and be scaled, it would be a game changer:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/awyllie13/status/1252995984189034497[/tweet]
When I say localized sampling, here's what I was thinking. Say each county gets enough tests to sample 1% of its population every month. They each develop a random sampling method and then when results return, the survey data and doctor-reported data can be given to the epidemiologists and statistical experts to map expected outbreak levels, not past outbreak levels as is done now.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't see the value in identifying cases presenting symptoms when the real issue is stopping the spread among those without symptoms.
On a related note, if the saliva test can be produced to give immediate results and be scaled, it would be a game changer:
[tweet]https://twitter.com/awyllie13/status/1252995984189034497[/tweet]