Are these PCR based tests? What is the accuracy rate? I was told it is far from 100%.
So is it possible that someone might test negative but then is actually asymptomatic?
This is exactly what happened last year in South Korea. People were tested many times and they were negative but turned out they were asymptomatic that the test kit failed to pick up.
Nothing about the virus is going to be 100% effective. It's a matter of compositing things that are 60% effective and 90% effective and 50% effective.
If they require testing which is 80% effective, and masks which are 80% effective, and get vaccination up to xx%... etc etc. You eliminate vectors for the virus one at a time and eventually there aren't enough vulnerable people contacting each other in ways that are contagious.
It isn't even 80% effective from the scientific journals I've read last year, the best they can do is 40% and lower, I think there is some inherent limitation in its accuracy.
I'd like to point out that many countries aren't running multiple tests to make up for this low accuracy like South Korea. It is the general consensus among experts that the actual case numbers are far far higher than what is reported
So if the 40% rate is true then the law of large number suggests the screening test is completely useless because it misses the 60% of the time. It's just like the Casino where the virus has a huge edge over our detection and prevention measures.
Every time you block some percentage of spreaders, you are reducing the reach of the virus. Even if a measure is only 20% effective, it's worth investing in.
If it's 40% effective and masks are 40% effective, collectively they are 64% effective together. This idea that measures need to be 90% effective is bunk. Incrementally we can improve the odds significantly.
In most other situations I would agree with you but this virus has a transmission R0 of 6!!! [1] This means even if you block 40% that remaining 60% that slipped by will overwhelm your medical infrastructure like what's happening in Japan now who didn't follow South Korea's standards (out of pride? so many countries chose to ignore Taiwan and South Korea's advices in the early days).
This is why you have extreme disparity between countries like Taiwan, South Korea, Vietnam vs America, Europe, Japan.
40% doesn't mean you are catching 40% of the viruses here. It means your detection is only at 40% capacity, like your vision.
I'm arguing for multiple PCR tests spread out over a few weeks to make up for this low accuracy. I doubt many people will put up with it like they did in South Korea or Taiwan. Especially North America where the individual rights come before the well being of society.
I actually thought that North American and Europe were anti-fragile, this virus quickly proved otherwise. How do you force individuals to comply with rules that is designed for the greater good when they've been told all their life their individual needs come first and the rest of society has to accommodate them?
Even getting people to wear masks is still an issue. I'm utterly disillusioned after 2020, the racist attacks from both sides of the political spectrum, the misinformation built upon centuries of stereotypes and exceptionalism, and a politically divided environment to boot.
As soon as we get more data on the vaccine's effectiveness on dealing with mutation variants over 1 or 2 years, I am getting the fuck out of North America and taking all the jobs with me.
Because this isn't the first pandemic and it sure as hell won't be the last, and I highly doubt people will have learned their lesson. Conspiracy, memes, and other incompetent thinking that arises from laziness. People in North America and Europe have lived comfortably for a long time post-WW2, relying on economic hegemonies, military intervention, immigration to do the dirty work, and I believe they are in decline now. Sure America will remain #1 military superpower but front lines have simply shifted away from trenches to our minds where you can conquer and control how people think in foreign countries. This is what unrestricted warfare looks like and we are seeing the fruit of this labor to the delight of its enemies.
[1] I recall reading Dr. Feigl-Ding's twitter last year which pointed to an American journal that cited this figure back in 2020 but I can't find it right now.
Are you suggesting closing international flights entirely or tighter restrictions should be required?
I've just heard quite a few people suggesting that if some counter-measure isn't "good enough" we shouldn't bother with it. I thought that's where you were going with this.
I don't object to tighter measures or double tests at all.
Also, I understand what you meant by 40% effective.
> So is it possible that someone might test negative but then is actually asymptomatic?
No, with PCR, the opposite is true. It is most likely that someone who is "positive" but asymptomatic has such a miniscule amount of virus in their system that they're not infectious.
> the researchers presumed that 30% of individuals who contract the new coronavirus never develop symptoms but remain 75% as infectious as those who do develop symptoms.
They made up some numbers and played with the math. It's conjecture, not research.
The second definition from Wiktionary is most appropriate for this situation:
> (formal) A supposition based upon incomplete evidence; a hypothesis.
There is no evidence that asymptomatic people are 75% as infectious as symptomatic people. The 75% number was fabricated to allow them to build a model. Asymptomatic people could be 0% as infectious as symptomatic people. Or, by some unexpected turn of fate, they could be 200% as infectious as symptomatic people. The evidence doesn't exist.
Your link even mentions another scientist who believes that asymptomatic people are only 35% as infectious.
So is it possible that someone might test negative but then is actually asymptomatic?
This is exactly what happened last year in South Korea. People were tested many times and they were negative but turned out they were asymptomatic that the test kit failed to pick up.