Hacker News Reader

Comment by mnm1 | Hacker News Reader

This is a reasonable and necessary response because testing still hasn't ramped up yet. The lockdown's purpose is not only to flatten the curve but to get to a point where trace and test is a viable strategy. It is unfortunate that the US is still only at around half the absolute minimum of daily tests (300k vs 500k) so we still have a long way to go before reopening is actually viable. If authorities wanted to open earlier, they should have increased the testing capacity. Unfortunately, that was not done. It doesn't even matter why at this point and that is a debate for another time and place. The fact of the matter is, we don't have enough testing to reopen in the US. I'm glad at least one county sees that.

View on HN

Testing has indeed "ramped up" in Los Angeles. Last time I checked there were 39 locations in Los Angeles where you could get a free test, no symptoms necessary. That count does not include going to your doctor or to a private lab. Would love to see the models behind 300k-500k test count and what that achieves. The goal is unclear in Los Angeles.

Are they are testing everyone with symptoms and tracing/quarantining all their contacts? Because if not, you need around 300 million tests a day.

If your goal is complete eradication?

The problem is that I remember, in the long dark mists of a month ago, when the US was only at around half of the absolute minimum of 130k. I think this is a moving target and that whatever amount of tests we have will always be considered unsatisfactory.

Amazing how science changes as we learn more. Not that that was ever a realistic number or proposed by anyone credible. 500k is almost unrealistic. One million a day is probably more along the lines of what we need.

See, this time it only took 6 hours for the goalpost to change. I'm sure in a month, when we start getting comfortably above 500k, people will show up to tell me that it was obvious we'd need 2 million.

Clearly you're not familiar with the concept of estimates, ranges, or uncertainty.

I'm familiar with the concept, and indeed it motivates my stance here. A rule that we won't open up until we're certain we have enough testing reduces to a rule that we'll never open, because that certainty is unachievable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com