An honest query by a non-medical professional as I'm sincerely curious...
Paul advocates daily saliva-based testing, but as an intermediary imperfect, but "better than nothing" measure, what are the benefits and drawbacks of requiring people entering public shared spaces to have their body temperatures taken via handheld temperature guns or infrared monitors, a measure that's already taking place in much East Asia (Greater China, Japan, Korea, etc.) in public shared spaces like malls, restaurants, office buildings? My understanding is that these methods are not as accurate as direct thermometers or Paul's saliva-based test; nonetheless, they would detect a good portion of mildly symptomatic people and also have the benefit of externally signaling to the populace to continue "sheltering-in-place" if they have a fever.
Is there any issue with supply chains? Or is there scientific evidence disproving the effectiveness of this precautionary measure that's already in place in so many regions that have already seemed to have crested the first wave of the pandemic?
Thermometers are better than nothing, but unlikely to stop the spread because of asymptomatic transmission (easy to catch the virus from someone who doesn't have a fever). This is why I think directly detecting the virus is essential.
In a best-case scenario, what is the timeline for testing, widescale manufacture, and rollout including “last mile” education to end users for the saliva tests? Is it achievable within a quarter? 2020? Beyond?
What’s the costs/benefits versus the temperature gun method already being used in Asia?
I fear that “perfect” or “near-perfect” solutions such as daily saliva testing would be potentially unrealistic for widespread rollout in an effective amount of time. Could we perhaps consider prioritize the superior daily testing solutions for high-priority environments like first responders and hospitals and nurses while reserving the “less-than-perfect” solutions such as what’s being done in Asia for environments with other essential workers, at least until scale-up hurdles can be surmounted?
The fast gun like IR thermometers are not very accurate. And can be fooled. In one case an infected person took fever reducing medicine specifically so that they would be allowed on a plane where the temperature was checked on boarding.
My assumption would be that high accuracy solutions such as PCR testing or even the saliva testing that Paul is suggesting would be ideal, but potentially difficult to effectively rollout in a widespread manner. While IR thermometers are not very accurate, are they on a whole accurate enough to effectively screen out a sufficient number of people to reduce the R-factor viral spread below 1.0? Again, I’m not a medical professional, but shouldn’t we be biasing towards processes already being used by the multiple regions that have seemed to have successfully managed to reduce the viral spread below 1.0 first before seeking new solutions?
Paul advocates daily saliva-based testing, but as an intermediary imperfect, but "better than nothing" measure, what are the benefits and drawbacks of requiring people entering public shared spaces to have their body temperatures taken via handheld temperature guns or infrared monitors, a measure that's already taking place in much East Asia (Greater China, Japan, Korea, etc.) in public shared spaces like malls, restaurants, office buildings? My understanding is that these methods are not as accurate as direct thermometers or Paul's saliva-based test; nonetheless, they would detect a good portion of mildly symptomatic people and also have the benefit of externally signaling to the populace to continue "sheltering-in-place" if they have a fever.
Is there any issue with supply chains? Or is there scientific evidence disproving the effectiveness of this precautionary measure that's already in place in so many regions that have already seemed to have crested the first wave of the pandemic?