1. Did you even read the article?

    Readup tracks your reading progress. In our community, you can’t comment on articles you haven’t really read.

    The New York Times Company | NATASHA SINGER | 5/11/20 | 8 min
    2 reads3 comments
    8.5
    The New York Times Company
    2 reads
    8.5
    PadlockYou must read the article before you can post or reply.
    • chrissetiana
      Top reader this weekReading streakScout
      3 weeks ago

      “Nothing is foolproof,” Ms. Seidman-Becker said. “It’s putting them together that allows you to buy down risk and increase confidence.”

      Yes. Because if you’re asymptomatic, scanners and these other things are pretty useless in determining your covid status. They can only detect a certain type and number of individuals. Quite limited and still very risky.

      • jbuchana
        Scribe
        3 weeks ago

        In a previous comment, I said that "temperature screening seems pretty benign." I was wrong though. Something that gives a false sense of security is far from benign, they create a false sense of "doing something" that takes attention away from the issue at hand, which in this case is protecting people's health and lives.

    • jbuchana
      Scribe
      3 weeks ago

      While temperature screening seems pretty benign, some other tacking ideas are perhaps a little more concerning.