So? That's guidance.
OK. But in reality they don't, and the isolation periods are different. And several of the symptoms are shared with the common cold, which doesn't require isolation at all in a lot of cases.
Hmmmm. Gathering data isn't the sole reason for testing, so this is irrelevant. Besides, this is something you seem to say about any proposed measure. If every measure isn't worth the money, you presumably just think the government shouldn't bother to invest in public health.
They didn't.
A large study released as a preprint paper last year showed that rapid tests were only 60 percent accurate on the first day of a person’s infection if they had symptoms. If the person was asymptomatic, the accuracy dropped to just 12 percent.
They can result in false negatives, but they remain a valuable tool in stopping the spread of Covid-19. Here’s how to use them most effectively.
www.nytimes.com
So why would you test if you don't have symptoms? Your ideal contact tracing/testing scenario where you're in contact with someone that tested positive and you test yourself right away to know whether or not you actually got covid (to then isolate without transmitting to more people) was never something possible back then nor right now. Thus, it's all a massive waste of resources.
The more and more covid has been around, the more and more it's become like the flu/head cold in length for all the different periods. Even when covid first came thru, the 10 day isolation period was too long, like no one was contagious for 10 days. It was just one of the many times, a number was just picked out of a hat and proclaimed the answer when no science was done. Again, how don't you yourself know when you're over a cold/flu/covid/etc? Covid is just an upper respiratory infection, not like cancer or something you'd need to get scanned for to know.
What's the point of testing? There's countries like Japan that didn't do it. I never got tested because like I explained with logic, there's no point to it. And by not getting tested, one of my insurances is literally cheaper than if I had had a confirmed case of covid, literally no joke. I also just said in the previous reply that antibody sample testing provided much more insight in the amount of covid infections and was far far far far far cheaper. Any measure makes sense if their benefit outweighs the cost.
They very much did, you're just gaslighting at this point trying to say health experts didn't recommend things that had no basis in science...
So you ARE arguing lockdown had no benefits at all, despite your prior denial that you weren't arguing that? Make your mind up.
Remdesivir was given an emergency authorisation in the USA in May 2020 based on preliminary clinical trial data (although the clinical trials were not fully published until months later). Under the circumstances, this was not unreasonable. Likewise, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and many other things were also used for treatment of covid, based on little more than rainbows and unicorns.
Er, you mean like him claiming no kids without pre-existing conditions died of covid, despite published reports of kids without pre-existing conditions dying of covid in both the medical / scientific literature and mainstream media?
I have already provided a source setting out the case in considerable detail. So did you not trouble yourself to read it, or do you have a memory that would flatter a goldfish?
Lockdowns had no overall benefit AKA the benefits came nowhere close to outweighing the costs. Also, where's there any proof that lockdowns were the thing that stopped the healthcare system from collapsing? Not every country did lockdowns and their systems didn't collapse. Why must you take everything so literal? It's like me saying the new Indiana Jones movie didn't make any money and you show me the box office of whatever millions it pulled in when my argument isn't that literally no one saw it and it literally made no money, it's that the budget was higher than it's box office returns. Who would actually argue that literally no one went to see the movie and it made no money?
Giving remdesivir emergency authorization at the time is no different than giving IVM emergency authorization based on the evidence of both drugs at the time. Yet one was demonized and nothing was said about the other drug being given out. You can't say it's OK to treat covid with remdesivir and horrible to treat covid with IVM (at that time with the evidence at that time). They're either both good or both bad.
He didn't see any report of a healthy kid dying from covid when he said that. Also, how is that so horrible of a thing to say anyway? There's no reason to have put any limitations on healthy kids. How did his messaging lead to unneeded deaths? You're giving me straight bullshit about Makary like him saying a healthy kid didn't die yet (so...?) or that his prediction on herd immunity was wrong (when literally everyone was wrong on that)? If this is all you got, then you got nothing and it's laughable that you think you he's some deplorable source. What's that you said in the BG3 thread about just not liking something because it doesn't align with your preconceived notions? You're the perfect example of that very thing right now.
This is so easy to re-find because it was on February 29th. What did Makary ever say that led to more deaths than Fauci telling people on February 29th, 2020 that people should go about their lives like normal? It was laughably bad at the time let alone in hindsight. Makary was saying in January we needed to do start doing stuff yet you have Fauci in basically March saying to carry on like normal. And you're saying to me Makary is deplorable and not a good source and Fauci ever was?
Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, joins Weekend TODAY to discuss the threat of coronavirus and the possibility of the disease’s “community spread.”
www.today.com
The amount that modern humans work is frankly stupid and inefficient, it exists because our society treats work as a measure of personal value
Helping society as a whole is stupid? Whether now or thousands of years ago in any culture or civilization, everyone having a job to do is helping everyone else. Whether in the past, people hunting for food, building shelter, upkeep/cleaning, cooking food, etc. vs people now driving a truck to deliver goods (whether necessities or luxury items), being a doctor treating people, community outreach/church, stocking shelves at Walmart, etc. It's not that someone isn't going to value you as a person if you don't work but you aren't doing your part basically. It's like at work, you have an employee or two that doesn't do as much and everyone else feels slighted because they either have to do more work to make up for that person or earning the same money yet working more. Or in a survival situation like the show Yellowjackets about soccer team of high school girls that crash lands in the wilderness and they have live off the land and when one of the girls isn't helping, the others get mad obviously.