Read on Twitter
It was more or less guaranteed that some colleges and universities would use the CDC's irresponsible higher education guidelines as an excuse not to conduct re-entry testing.
I've written about this elsewhere: http://ctbergstrom.com/publications/pdfs/2020CHEb.pdf
I've written about this elsewhere: http://ctbergstrom.com/publications/pdfs/2020CHEb.pdf
The @UNC has announced that they will not be conducting re-entry testing—and indeed they use the CDC recommendations as justification. (h/t @bhrenton)
What astonishes me is the level of support among the medical and public health faculty for this plan. I've written about this as well (thread). https://twitter.com/CT_Bergstrom/status/1278906732492632064
The Daily Tarheel adds another voice to the chorus.
"Instead of testing everyone, individuals should work under the assumption that everybody is infected," says Prof. Jim Thomas.
I don't understanding this.
If I assumed everyone is infected, I would close the school.
"Instead of testing everyone, individuals should work under the assumption that everybody is infected," says Prof. Jim Thomas.
I don't understanding this.
If I assumed everyone is infected, I would close the school.
Over and over again we hear that testing is pointless or worse because it's not 100% effective.
Where is this bizarre notion coming from?
Why not put yourself in the best starting position possible with re-entry testing?
Why not chip away at R0 with ongoing proactive tests?
Where is this bizarre notion coming from?
Why not put yourself in the best starting position possible with re-entry testing?
Why not chip away at R0 with ongoing proactive tests?
