At the moment, that data would not make any significant difference on the actual decisions that are made today. Or can you think of anything you would change with the knowledge that 20% of the population have been infected, versus 2%? As long as thousands die each day, there really is no alternative to the current strategy.
It would possibly help planning for the next phase. But mostly it would feed our curiosity.
Contrast to using limited tests to find the greatest number of infected people: every additional person knowing without a doubt that they are infected is one more person doing their best not to spread it further.
It’s wasteful to test randomly until we are able to test high risk groups every day or so. Cashiers, for example are at high risk of infection, and ha e possibly hundreds of contacts per day.
For population-randomized testing, antibody tests should be far superior anyway. They allow detection of. It just active cases but also past infections.
It would possibly help planning for the next phase. But mostly it would feed our curiosity.
Contrast to using limited tests to find the greatest number of infected people: every additional person knowing without a doubt that they are infected is one more person doing their best not to spread it further.
It’s wasteful to test randomly until we are able to test high risk groups every day or so. Cashiers, for example are at high risk of infection, and ha e possibly hundreds of contacts per day.
For population-randomized testing, antibody tests should be far superior anyway. They allow detection of. It just active cases but also past infections.