Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghufran_syed | Hacker News Reader

Funny how many people think "they were too slow with testing" - do any of these commentators have any idea how long it takes to develop a reliable, sensitive and hopefully specific test for a virus that probably didn't exist in its current form until around 3 months ago. Oh, and then also to be able to make a production line capable of producing millions of them while maintaining quality - why not criticize them for not yet developing an effective antiviral treatment and vaccine for the condition too?

View on HN

This is not a complicated test to make or run. Most microbiology grad students could make it and every university lab could run them.

Lack of testing does not appear to have been a technology or supply chain problem, possible supply chain probs in future...

The US had tested 23 out of every million people as of 11th March, while South Korea had done 3692/million as of 8th March.

Funny how many people think "they were too slow with testing"

They were.

do any of these commentators have any idea how long it takes to develop a reliable, sensitive and hopefully specific test

The CDC forbade King County from using their own home grown test.

that probably didn't exist in its current form until around 3 months ago.

The US CDC also declined to use the WHO test (and presumably the Chinese and Korean ones as well)... even as a temporary measure.

why not criticize them for not yet developing an effective antiviral treatment and vaccine for the condition too?

Because the tests were widely available, widely distributed, and non-CDC labs have already developed tests. The same is not true with a vaccine. IIRC antivirals are being tested in Seattle.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/10/us/coronavirus-testing-de...

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/03/06/coronavirus-testing...

The WHO already had the test.

Which test? What kind of distribution did that test have? What kind of distribution capacity did that test have? What kind of false positive rate?

Classic "the [solution] that exists isn't good enough, therefore we can't use it at all!"

A pandemic is not the time to be picky - if anything, a high false positive rate helps. Would you rather 10 people quarantined, of whom only 2 are sick, or all 10 released into the wild because no test kit (of any sort) was available?

To be fair, a test with high false-negative rate would be problematic. 10 people released into the wild, who think they don't have it, is worse than 10 people released into the wild who are uncertain about their status.

Not saying that's what happened here (perfect is the enemy of the good!), just that it could be worse. It could always be worse.

Even without a test you could quarantine people who get off flights. We've been doing it for years with pets traveling from specific countries.

I would rather anyone with symptoms and ability to self quarantine instead of burdening the economy and healthcare system.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com