Congress leader Rahul Gandhi Thursday joined a battery of health experts who have said that India’s testing rate was very low, urging the Modi govt to increase it.
Angioplasty tops the list of high-end medical procedures, in line with Modi govt’s stance that the scheme will allow the poor access to speciality treatment.
According to government reply in Lok Sabha, the pilot phase of PMIS is being used to test concepts, strategies and systems before a full-scale implementation of the scheme.
Order for 87 MALE drones will be split between 2 Indian firms in 64:36 ratio to ensure there are 2 independent manufacturing lines with at least 60% indigenous components.
The India-South Africa series-defining fact is the catastrophic decline of Indian red ball cricket where a visiting team can mock us with the 'grovel' word.
This whole rebuttle from the ICMR states how we are incapable of testing. We have not even tested 3% of our population yet. The numbers speak for themselves.
How to balance the needs of the economy and society with the goal of keeping people healthy.
No one has been able to explain to me the value of “testing.” Can you? One can be tested one day and be found clear of the virus and come down with it the next day. How does that help anyone? Secondly, there’s no way I’m going in for testing which would put all my associates in quarantine for 14 days when they’ve already be “in place” for four weeks! This doesn’t make any sense to me.
Suggestion is the population to be divided into low- and high-risk groups.
1)People under the age of 65 and without underlying medical conditions
2) One’s who are at low risk for becoming fatally infected with corona, can return to life as usual while following certain distancing protocols. Admitted how well will this work and how to be implemented/enforced to be worked out
Those over 65 or with co-morbidities, who are high-risk, would stay at home and be surgically quarantined – tested as soon as they exhibit coronavirus symptoms. If people test positive, they are quarantined, epidemiological tracking is carried out and all those who they were in contact with are also isolated. The high-risk population will gradually be released.
The strategy of complete or large scale lock down is in effect at this time. Its logic is to drastically limit new cases of the virus, and give time for the infected to recover or not. The virus will have fewer and fewer hosts and eventually won’t exist.
Lock down businesses to be shut down, and people to be unemployed. Given sufficient time, the country goes bankrupt, and lives are ruined. This follows the saying “The cure is worse than the disease”. A different “cure” is required, which is one that allows the economy to function to a degree, while keeping deaths to a minimum.
There are two issues: the time period when the virus exists and infects people, and the time to recover or not. Without a cure, the time line of recovery or death for COVID-19 does not change, no matter what. The first issue can be controlled, and would allow new cases and deaths to be kept to a minimum, while allowing the economy to function to a degree.
The goal is to shorten the times when people can get infected and the economy gets back to running at full steam. They all require the same thing, which is to allow people to get infected in a managed way. They create different balances between the total number of cases (and the length of time for the virus to disappear), and running a viable economy while the virus exists.
I do not understand the reluctance to test more widely. Even in Bombay, one of the most affected spots in the country, and amongst the relatives and close contacts of those who have been infected. For fifteen prominent hospitals in Bombay to be closed because so many of their healthcare professionals are infected weakens the overall capacity to fight the pandemic. More testing would give us a better understanding of the spread of the virus and plan the gradual lifting of the lockdown more scientifically. Nor is any useful purpose being served by reiterating the assertion that the stage of community spread has not been reached. Tell it like it is, as Governor Andrew Cuomo is doing.
Can you please remove the first line of my comment: The heading you have put is better suits the article rather than a misleading heading by the Print.
This whole rebuttle from the ICMR states how we are incapable of testing. We have not even tested 3% of our population yet. The numbers speak for themselves.
How to balance the needs of the economy and society with the goal of keeping people healthy.
No one has been able to explain to me the value of “testing.” Can you? One can be tested one day and be found clear of the virus and come down with it the next day. How does that help anyone? Secondly, there’s no way I’m going in for testing which would put all my associates in quarantine for 14 days when they’ve already be “in place” for four weeks! This doesn’t make any sense to me.
Suggestion is the population to be divided into low- and high-risk groups.
1)People under the age of 65 and without underlying medical conditions
2) One’s who are at low risk for becoming fatally infected with corona, can return to life as usual while following certain distancing protocols. Admitted how well will this work and how to be implemented/enforced to be worked out
Those over 65 or with co-morbidities, who are high-risk, would stay at home and be surgically quarantined – tested as soon as they exhibit coronavirus symptoms. If people test positive, they are quarantined, epidemiological tracking is carried out and all those who they were in contact with are also isolated. The high-risk population will gradually be released.
The strategy of complete or large scale lock down is in effect at this time. Its logic is to drastically limit new cases of the virus, and give time for the infected to recover or not. The virus will have fewer and fewer hosts and eventually won’t exist.
Lock down businesses to be shut down, and people to be unemployed. Given sufficient time, the country goes bankrupt, and lives are ruined. This follows the saying “The cure is worse than the disease”. A different “cure” is required, which is one that allows the economy to function to a degree, while keeping deaths to a minimum.
There are two issues: the time period when the virus exists and infects people, and the time to recover or not. Without a cure, the time line of recovery or death for COVID-19 does not change, no matter what. The first issue can be controlled, and would allow new cases and deaths to be kept to a minimum, while allowing the economy to function to a degree.
The goal is to shorten the times when people can get infected and the economy gets back to running at full steam. They all require the same thing, which is to allow people to get infected in a managed way. They create different balances between the total number of cases (and the length of time for the virus to disappear), and running a viable economy while the virus exists.
All the people (including WHO) who are arguing about lower testing are not uninformed .
an uninformed argument? Sheesh
I do not understand the reluctance to test more widely. Even in Bombay, one of the most affected spots in the country, and amongst the relatives and close contacts of those who have been infected. For fifteen prominent hospitals in Bombay to be closed because so many of their healthcare professionals are infected weakens the overall capacity to fight the pandemic. More testing would give us a better understanding of the spread of the virus and plan the gradual lifting of the lockdown more scientifically. Nor is any useful purpose being served by reiterating the assertion that the stage of community spread has not been reached. Tell it like it is, as Governor Andrew Cuomo is doing.
Can you please remove the first line of my comment: The heading you have put is better suits the article rather than a misleading heading by the Print.