A predominantly one-topic blog: how is it that the most imminent and lethal implication for humankind - the fact that the doctrine of "Mutually Assured Destruction" will not work with Iran - is not being discussed in our media? Until it is recognized that MAD is dead, the Iranian threat will be treated as a threat only to Israel and not as the global threat which it in fact is.
A blog by Mladen Andrijasevic
Thursday, October 8, 2020
Dr. Osterholm's Take on the White House COVID-19 Outbreak
White House covid-19 protection plan - like secret service agents with squirt guns to protect the president against an assassin
But let me do take a step backward and say, if you were
on this podcast as early as July, you heard me say that I thought that the
testing program put in place at the White House to protect the president and
other senior leadership was not a plan at all, and in fact it reminded me of
providing all the secret service agents with squirt guns and expect them to
protect the president against an assassin.
Let me just say a couple of comments about testing and
what was done at the White House. This is one of those examples where there was
a mindset you can test your way into safety, i.e. test your way out of the
pandemic. Simply not possible to do! Testing is always going to be after the
fact. It is going to be a situation that even if it is highly reliable it doesn’t
protect you from being exposed, all it does is tell you that you were. And now
some people would say but if I know that I am infected then I can take steps to
reduce my risk of transmitting to others, and that’s a great idea. But let just
us be honest, first of all, what test we are talking about, these point of care
tests are often coming up with more than 30 to 50 percent false negatives, meaning
you are missing people who are positive,
and so if you are trying to xxx yourself that is one thing.
Second, I would acknowledge to those who promote this new
testing approach or strategy for containment as they call it, this would help,
but with one caveat. As we just saw what happened at the White House - will people actually use this information to actually
change their behavior so that they do not transmit. And we have seen a number
of examples of people who were contacts of cases, who were cases, who did not
abide by what we would hope would have been risk reduction behavior. So I am
not suggesting that’s widespread in the population, but when you have almost a
third of the public who does not believe this pandemic is real. You have a number
of people experiencing pandemic fatigue, they think this is too much I do not
want to deal with it, and you have a number of people who are bubbled in today because
of their high risk of serious disease if they get infected, that does not leave
a lot of people left in the middle necessarily who are going to be impacted by
this kind of testing.
And so, the last piece is of this point in care testing,
we are going to show very shortly that there is actually a very important
number of false positives, and wait until people are taking these rapid tests and
call false positives only to be confirmed by PCR that they were not positive at
all, and see how long that is going to last, and watch that spread around as a
challenge why not to take them, because the next thing you know you have to be
worked up, you know you got everybody upset and concerned and it wasn’t even
true positive.
So, I just want to come back to this issue. I would
support any kind of testing that might help actually reduce the number of
cases. And I think the White House experience really is that. It shows you the
challenges of using testing in regards to behavior change and what it means and
what it does. So yes, it can have some impact, but it is not going to have this
major containment strategy outcome. And I am sorry that the White House situation
ever occurred, but I think it is illustrative of the point that we are making,
and again false positives and false negatives point of care tests are occurring
much, much more frequently than people realize and they will dramatically
impact even among that limited number of people who are even willing to consider
taking these on a routine basis that they ultimately would do.
Now what I have a hard time with is that no one addressed
that situation at the White House, even though it was raised with them at
numerus occasions that this was a terribly inadequate plan. Keeping in mind
that, this is what I have been basically saying, as many of you know, it is emblematic
of we do not have a national plan for responding to this pandemic, so why
should we be surprised if we don’t have a White House protection plan? And so
what this episode should tell us is that we desperately need for a national plan
how to respond and how we bring the 50 states together, recognizing their
diverse differences whether they be urban or rural, whether they be west, south,
north, east, whatever. But we need a comprehensive plan. We don’t have that. People
will say we do but I defy anyone to come forward and tell you what our plan is.