Yes we had a communication break down.
Someone implied (or it is how I read it) that they are unaware of what is going on so they are making bad decisions.
I said they know exactly what is going on, and they are making decisions based on models and projections. I did not say those were correct, in fact like you I think things could have been done far better.
But they DO know exactly what is going on, they are just not doing what they probably should be doing to deal with it.
See you said this:"Essentially, a negative test doesn't really tell you much at all. It doesn't tell you whether the person does or doesn't have the flu and shouldn't be treated as if it does. Decisions not to start antiviral or to allow a child to attend school, etc. should NOT be made based on a negative test result."
And that is EXACTLY how I feel about it. IF you are knowledgeable in its lack of selectivity then information could be used.
However, Capeman believes most doctors will not be bright enough to understand that in general and many people that should be treated, will not be. He is saying 1 in 3 people that should be treated will not be treated because of that test. And the truth of the matter is that many MD's we speak to have no idea lack of selectivity.
And there is the problem so I can see his point too.
It seems though that many doctors are relying on the test instead of the accepting classic symptoms of flu for diagnosis. And I think you may be making an assumption that they are all as bright as you, and that may not be the case
Do you have the secondary infection posts?
Ill be offline a bit but I am very interested in the posts Dr. Niman was talking about.