Quote:
Originally Posted by jtown,man
And driving the speed limit and being a defensive driver and wearing a seat belt doesn't guarantee you won't get in a wreck and die.
When did we become a nation of fools who think they need 100% assurance they will never ever be put at any risk?
|
The analogies don't work. It may take only one germ-spewing infectious person in a room to infect most of the other people in it. That you screened out another germ spewer who had a fever doesn't matter.
Driving safely and wearing a seat belt may be additive in what they add to your safety but putting only half as many infectious people in a space does not come close to cutting the risk of being in that space in half.
If taking temperatures were highly effective in finding the infected, it might make sense even though not perfect, but 50% is nowhere near good enough for this purpose even to make a modest difference.
Again, it's not exactly equivalent but recall that Tony Fauci said sometime last year before we had data on the vaccines that the FDA would likely require 70% efficacy to approve them. Had they been only 50% effective, they would not have been approved (even if the vaccine had been extremely safe with almost no side effects). When it comes to a highly transmissible airborne pathogen that can be transmitted to a high percentage of people with whom one infected person comes into contact, you need a high degree of effectiveness in the methods you are using against it and taking temps doesn't cut it.