[/B]
Quote:
Originally Posted by TiltonBB
Four benchmarks for a return to normalcy
Researchers recently outlined some markers:
1. Hospitals must be able to safely treat all patients requiring hospitalization, without resorting to crisis standards of care. That means having adequate beds, ventilators and staff.
2. The authorities must be able to test everyone who has symptoms, and to get reliable results quickly. That would be well more than 750,000 tests a week in the U.S.
3. Health agencies must be able to monitor confirmed cases, trace contacts of the infected, and have at-risk people go into isolation or quarantine.
4. There must be a sustained reduction in cases for at least 14 days, because it can take that long for symptoms to appear.
|
The above is true from purely a medical perspective, but I would add one more.... a prophylactic drug of some sort. Whether this is Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine or something else will remain to be seen. Given that, we can't wait for the "normal" complete drug assessment to be completed since there are people dying daily. And as I would be assessing for myself in that case, "what do I have to lose" in taking a long-available drug. At least one Democrat Congresswomen is eternally grateful for the President shedding light on these drugs.
Outside of the medical issues here, this is truly a classic risk assessment evaluation that must be performed to determine when we start to return to normal. While Faucci and Birx are focused on minimizing deaths from the virus, there are other very real risks in keeping the government shut down, many that will also increase deaths. In a risk assessment model, you weigh
probabilities vs.
consequence. If something has a low probability of occurring, we can live with a bit more sever consequence. If it is a high probability of occurring, we need to reduce the consequence. Right now this virus has given us high probability and high consequence. The quarantines have aimed at reducing the probability but we need to focus on reducing the consequences to be able to ease up on the quarantine. A vaccine would do that but that is at least a year out. If we had a prophylactic drug available to be taken, or a quick cure, or a prior-exposure test, or all three were available, the risk would drop down to minimal and we could get back to work.
The bottom line is that the President has a very tough set of decisions to make and it can not be totally the call of the doctors. This is an unprecedented complex medical and economic situation and there is very little history to use to climb out of it. But rest assured, whatever decision he makes will be questioned, right or wrong.