Replies to post #69906 on Decision Diagnostics Corp (DECN)

[rawman]

It shows how important is widespread testing to very effectively bring the number of new cases down.

I absolutely concur; however, it is not feasible to test the entire U.S. or global population on a daily basis or even on a twice weekly basis. Where do you draw the line? Less frequent testing would help, but would not be the perfect solution, as the testing "gaps" would allow some portion of the infected population to always be part of the crowd.

The best example of testing a entire population was the village of 3000 inhabitants in Italy. 3000 inhabitants is manageable from logistical perspective. 320,000,000 people in the U.S. is a logistical impossibility. The medical practitioners, researchers, and statisticians will have to guide us, but there is clearly no easy answer.

What is a "viable" means of managing the risks? As mentioned earlier, as a first step, it would seem valuable to know what specific portion of the population is actually carrying the COVID-19 antibodies. The antibody-equipped portion of the population would be considered immune to further near-term infection. A focus on antibody testing could make this happen, probably fairly quickly. Of course antibody testing only serves to identify those who are probably immune and does nothing for the remainder of the population. Maybe the immune could get a Government-issued ID to say it's OK to go to bars and restaurants, while the rest of us stay at home watching re-runs of Leave It Beaver! LOL! Hopefully, people smarter than me can come up with some good "out-of-the-box" ideas! Social distancing, temperature screenings, active virus testing, and wearing N-95 masks for another year or whenever we have a vaccine, will suck, but it may prove to be the only viable alternative!