How the 'test to treat' initiative aims to get ahead of next wave of COVID-19

The one shot vaccine was supposed to be the big solution.

Whatever happened to that theory?

Mostly variants, exactly what was predicted to complicate the situation since before vaccines were even developed, pretending this is exactly the same virus and the adquired immunity (by any means) is equally effective against it makes absolutely no sense.

So even if they don't have any symptoms and don't feel ill at all? This is a hypochondriac's dream but there's no way of telling if the test is right or not...

So you think people who get a tumor detected should be free of treatment until they feel bad? the infection comes with risks and if a medical professional judges the person benefit from antiviral therapy to avoid those risks there is nothing "hypochondriac" about it.

I should add that there are plenty of things you can take to prevent covid on top of living a healthy lifestyle including vitamin D, zinc and quercetin rather than just waiting until it's too late

Getting pharmacological treatment to avoid risks is precisely this, test and examine the patients to see what can be done to prevent complications before it's too late. The problem is that your bias immediately assume "medicines bad" when this obviously doesn't have to be the case.

A core thesis of these authors is that pharmacists must be allowed to provide more clinical services, particularly in underserved areas in the community. So that all communities can have access to treatment by a pharmacist.

I respectfully dissent.

With wide-spread access to telemedicine services, pharmacists, particularly specialty pharmacists, have instant access to licensed providers. They are critical role in working with licensed providers and prescribers to determine an appropriate course of action, and follow up with a patient, so they can receive a complete treatment regimen.

Pharmacists in the telemed world can certainly play the role of intermediary, between patient and provider. And speed up the process of diagnosis and treatment considerably by efficient and effective collaboration.

Pharmacists in our telemedicine world have a vital role to play in the delivery of coordinated care. And payment and reimbursement policies must reflect the appropriate use of their valuable services.

Pharmacists can and should be welcomed partners in care. But they should not be primary care providers.

I agree with a lot of what Skeptical says, pharmacy services replacing medical consultations would have made sense if there was not another option to let doctors see patients promptly, but with telemedicine this is no longer a worry, let the pharmacy be a point of contact and the doctors to examine the patients remotely and there will be no reason for pharmacists to assume responsibilities they are not trained to take.

Going into the third year of the pandemic, public health experts are developing strategies to work within communities to have a more nimble and rapid response to COVID-19 infection rates.

How about limiting those infection rates in the first place?　According to scientific experts, a zero covid policy is the most effective way to limit covid infection rates and covid related deaths; even in the US those who have not been infected share the trait of sequestering themselves from others; a self-imposed zero covid policy.

If anyone wants to comment and try to contradict this, let's see your sources. Remember--your opinion is not a source.

According to scientific experts, a zero covid policy is the most effective way to limit covid infection rates and covid related deaths

That is completely false, why don't you follow your own instructions and provide a source where an expert recommends a zero covid policy now in the year 2022, with omicron as the predominant variant? as you wrote, just because you write something that does not make it a source.

In reality no expert recommends this, the policy has shown to fail spectacularly with the variants, as shown in Hong Kong and Shangai, focusing on vaccination, treatment and a rational control of the spreading is something that can prevent these failures.

From very early on in the pandemic (spring 2020), they could have and should have tested and treated people, instead of following the test and isolate policy. So many lives have been unnecessarily lost.

virusrexToday  07:40 am JST

That is completely false, why don't you follow your own instructions and provide a source where an expert recommends a zero covid policy now in the year 2022, with omicron as the predominant variant? as you wrote, just because you write something that does not make it a source.

Remember the rule:

painkillerApr. 10  10:52 pm JST

If anyone wants to comment and try to contradict this, let's see your sources. Remember--your opinion is not a source.

Remember the rule:

So where are your sources? saying you have presented zero sources can be confirmed just by looking at your comments, not a single expert that support your point of view, this means it is just a product of your imagination.

From very early on in the pandemic (spring 2020), they could have and should have tested and treated people, instead of following the test and isolate policy. So many lives have been unnecessarily lost

Isolation saved a lot of people when the factors that made it less necessary (principally vaccines) were not present. At this point it has less value, but still a controlled spreading with limited isolation of cases is better than wildspread contagion as the antiscientific fanatics keep recommending.

From very early on in the pandemic (spring 2020), they could have and should have tested and treated people, instead of following the test and isolate policy. So many lives have been unnecessarily lost

Isolation saved a lot of people when the factors that made it less necessary (principally vaccines) were not present.

I'm not saying they should not isolate. My point is that isolation was the only approach. For a long time, infected people were simply sent home and told to go to the hospital if they had trouble breathing (ie too late).

The infected should have been sent home with safe, effective, and cheap meds that were already known in 2020. Places that followed this approach had very good results.

virusrexToday  05:40 pm JST

So where are your sources? saying you have presented zero sources can be confirmed just by looking at your comments, not a single expert that support your point of view, this means it is just a product of your imagination

So no sources, again. Typical. Just create experts in your head, cut and paste and pretend it is your own, and make up conclusions with no basis, and when asked for a source, refuse to provide any, and refer back to "The experts say..."---which of course leads back to where those experts are from.

Your head.

I'm not saying they should not isolate. My point is that isolation was the only approach. For a long time, infected people were simply sent home and told to go to the hospital if they had trouble breathing (ie too late).

As long as heath services can deal with the patients that is not necessary, it was the influence of antiscientific groups that pushed for widespread infection that caused hospitals to stop being able to care for patients. Fortunately most places gave no attention to this antiscientific propaganda and the problem was not as common as those groups would have liked.

The infected should have been sent home with safe, effective, and cheap meds that were already known in 2020. Places that followed this approach had very good results.

Drugs like ivermectin that you keep pushing but that have been already found to be worthless against COVID even when used before the infection? that is the opposite of what should have been used, because its toxicity makes it worse than not giving anything.

So no sources, again. Typical

Yes, you keep making up things without giving any source, and when someone calls you to bring some your only reply is that magically everybody needs sources to prove you have not brought anything. Which of course is not valid, it is as easy as reading your comment and seeing how you made up something that the experts supposedly said but that nobody else in the world can find, because this exist only in your mind.

Some countries, such as South Korea and New Zealand, invested heavily in COVID-19 testing and contact tracing early in the pandemic so those at higher risk of infection could be tested immediately and isolated early. And they implemented contract tracing – the process of identifying friends, family and co-workers who may have come into contact with the infected person – early on to help slow the spread of infection.

And now South Korea has one of the highest infection rates in the world. And New Zealand has seen its infections and related deaths skyrocket after it abandoned its zero covid policy.

The simple fact--with a zero covid policy, a country does not have to invest in a testing and contact tracing approach, because the number of infected is so tiny.

Because a country did not follow the zero covid policy successfully, it now has to fall back to this testing and tracing approach, because it is already behind in preparation for the next wave.

The simple fact--with a zero covid policy, a country does not have to invest in a testing and contact tracing approach, because the number of infected is so tiny.

Your fact is wrong, once because the testing is not done to people that are infected (how you would know they are infected before testing?) but to anybody that could be.

Looks at how much testing is being done in Shanghai, that is a huge investment even if you only consider the tests, and it is failing almost as much as it failed in Hong Kong.

Because a country did not follow the zero covid policy successfully, it now has to fall back to this testing and tracing approach, because it is already behind in preparation for the next wave.

Against Delta and specially Omicron no country can follow the zero covid policy sucessfully, China is on a fixed path so it does not change its approach and it has failed repeatedly, first in Hong Kong, then in Shanghai and now in many other provinces as well that are seeing uncontrollable spreading of the disease.

In comparison countries like New Zealand that abandoned the policy and switched priorities to protecting in a much more efficient way its population have never the disaster that has now become the rule for the Chinese approach.

The premise is that the sooner people are tested, the sooner they can self-isolate to limit the spread of the disease while simultaneously receiving oral antiviral medications to help prevent hospitalization and death from COVID-19.

The US had relaxed restrictions so it has had to resort to these measures.

virusrexApr. 13  03:54 pm JST

In comparison countries like New Zealand that abandoned the policy and switched priorities to protecting in a much more efficient way its population have never the disaster that has now become the rule for the Chinese approach.

And when NZ abandoned the policy its Covid infections and related deaths increased by almost 100% in comparison to when the policy was in effect.

So, once again, the zero covid policy is the most effective strategy at limiting the number of covid infections and related deaths. Simple math. Easily available statistics.

Facts.