I agree. Testing is one of the fundamental components. In Oz testing was initially targeted on the most likely areas to get positives to track and trace those with symptoms and those in contact with them to isolate. We also had a high rate of testing (17 per 1000 of pop, US at 12) and a low rate of positives (65.3 tests per positive, US 5.3) which meant, even with strictly testing only those with symptoms we were catching most of the cases. As we are getting on top of it, we can now start to look at widening the testing and randomised to try to establish the level of asymtomatic cases. Testing is crucial. The numbers in UK and US really highlight how the numbers of actual cases is likely to be substantially underestimated and why both countries should not be loosening restrictions until those criteria are met.

Even with all our successes we had an economist on Q and A who thought we should open up and accept more deaths to save jobs. Fortunately she has almost universally been told not just by health professionals, but even those who have lost their jobs that this is not the answer, lives are more important. How would you feel if you were unnecessarily responsible for others catching the virus and possibly even dying. Stay strong, stay safe, we're all in it together and we will come out of this.

One thing that has impressed me was the level to which political differences were put to one side and the nations leaders came together to work on this together. Experts and political leaders from all states and territories held bi weekly virtual meetings and established a plan together. Whilst there have been a few minor difference between states, mainly due to higher positives, the messages were clear, well explained and lead by health experts. Because of that the public (and trust me when I say we don't trust our politicians) saw the reasoned arguments and the graphs of the different likely rates of infection with 70, 80 and 90 percent compliance with social distancing, and acted. It is estimated compliance was so good at over 90% that we got on top of it earlier than expected. I say this in a positive way to those concerned, the earlier and harder you act, and the longer that you keep the number of infected per infection below 1, the sooner you can get on top.

Glad you're asleep KT, or you might have roasted me.

Start

ding

Done. Deserves to be Hard

no testing needed foor this one

The genome (structure) of the virus was published January 7. Three ddays later a Berlin lab developed the first test to detect the virus. The Korean test was ready on the 12th. It is not so much a single test but a test procedure that can take up to six hours. The limiting factors are thus the number of labs with the right equipment and the supply of certain reagentia.

In the Netherlands 80% of the labs use Roche equipment and there was and is a shortage of reagentia supplies for that brand of equipment. That has severely limited our test capacity. The Germans use Siemens (what else?) and don't have this problem.

The US suffered from a not-invented-here syndrome and developed it's own test procedure - and they failed. Loosing 3 weeks.

this is considered easy????

Easy with a guess :)

not easy, agreed

It really is an easy because every step is simple, although it takes time to find a couple of them. A great example of the advantage of using cross hatching first and then adding greens manually. I believe it might be quite difficult to solve without greens though.

only found 3 numbers with first 1-9 scan.. ouch

missed a couple 5's i should have seen.... not too proud to go green though...I'm way behind

Did it, no green, no guess. For an Easy, that was really difficult. Only from missing crosshatches. 20.

start

done