100% Agreed.

I agree. At the very least it might encourage people to think about others when leaving their homes. MV law enforcement is already not able to address problems with those who don't care to follow the orders, i.e., large party of adults and kids at Rengstorff House on Saturday, nonessential workers continuing to work throughout the city. So don't expect increased enforcement over a mask requirement. A mask requirement at the very least communicates an intent, which might encourage more people to wear masks in public than currently do.

And also communicates to the public that COVID-19 is stlll here. Was at Trader Joe's on Saturday and the grocery clerk at checkout was exhausted from having to remind people to stay 6' back. She said that customers are getting relaxed about social distancing, etc. With a mask requirement, there's a visual reminder we are still in a crisis.

Fully agree !!
Mountain view should set an example here.
It would be safer for everybody.

100% Agree. It sets the right expectations for everyone.

Much like the airport security circus we endure, non-medical masks provide zero benefit in open spaces and are of questionable inside.

There is no silver bullet. The only solution is immunity. Staying at home destroying the economy is doing zero to enable that eventuality.

Remember, we started all of this to buy time for capacity. Now we are (obsurdly) dismantling capacity, and have moved from "flatten the curve" to "find the cure."

We have been waiting for vaccine for 30 years for HIV. We don't have an effective flu vaccine, nor a vaccine against the 5 other Coronavirus strains in circulation.

Much like the 1969 Hong Kong flu that swept across our State and then the country, with similar virility, we need to get back to work and prepare to treat the sick should it occur. We need a functioning economy to treat the sick- or we will keep seeing health care workers being laid off, hospitals close, and worse. That is truly the health crisis. Not a disease with a vastly overstated death rate based on junk science.

The county of Santa Clara already requires a face covering: Web Link

Santa Clara County's policy is incomplete. See the article below:
Web Link

Excerpt:
"In adopting the law, the [Palo Alto] council joined a handful of other Bay Area cities that have adopted local laws that exceed Santa Clara County's regulations. San Mateo, San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin and San Francisco counties require face coverings, with violations punishable as misdemeanors. Santa Clara County has stopped short of making them a requirement but is "strongly recommending" their use.

Dr. Sara Cody, the county's health officer, had said that she believes an order to wear face coverings would be difficult to enforce and that she believes people will wear them voluntarily."

@Reality

> Much like the airport security circus we endure, non-medical masks provide zero benefit in open spaces and are of questionable inside.

This is false. Non-medical masks are not to protect yourself, they are to protect others around you and reduce (but not eliminate) the likelihood of transmission between people. They have been proven effective in doing this.

> There is no silver bullet. The only solution is immunity. Staying at home destroying the economy is doing zero to enable that eventuality.

It's true there is no silver bullet, and no one is suggesting there is. Nor is anyone saying to "destroy the economy", they are saying to ensure people wear masks to reduce transmission rates.

Much like speed limits, it is not a guarantee of safety but it is in the public interest and helps to limit and reduce bad outcomes.

> Not a disease with a vastly overstated death rate based on junk science.

You are spreading dangerous misinformation. Shame on you.

Again, the county ALREADY REQUIRES face coverings. From SC order Web Link "Under the May 4 Order, you are required to wear a face covering whenever you are at a business (even if it’s an outdoor business), including as an employee or a customer. Businesses must post signs reminding you to wear a face covering when you are at their facilities. You are also required to wear face coverings while riding on public transit."
If you're recommending a law to wear a face covering whenever your 'out of the house' even if you're maintaining ample distance from others, that's completely ridiculous.

Thank you Mr. Chiang. The Reality is that these type of 'procedure' face masks do help limit the spread of respiratory droplets. That is why procedure facemarks have been used for over a century in medical situations. Silver Bullets are 100% effective I hear against vampires!

This or any other virus is not myth. And scientific studies show that this particular one is not "as viable" for as long a time period (half-life) as, for instance, measles air-borne virus. It needs those droplets - for air or surface transmission.

Mr. Chiang, like most of us WANTS TO REOPEN in a safe manner. I know he would love to get back to teaching, his profession, as much as many of the rest of us want to get back to our own lives.

But- LIVE LONG AND PROSPER. Don't be stupid and die or infect others.

To the well-intentioned individuals accusing me of spreading disinformation: please assume best intent, as I am with you.

My basis of opinion was not from TV news or a blog. I read the Stanford study (not the summary in the press) and also did a source code review of the Royal College model -- often referenced as "the standard." The former points to a grossly under-reported infection rate (which would then directly correlate to an inflated mortality rate) while the latter is quite frankly, terrifying in glaring technical inaccuracies which drive highly suspect output.

My assertion here is that the data has been wrong and continues to be wrong for a reason. Rather than simply listening and doing what one is told -- which may make sense in the early stages of a crisis, we absolutely have a right to question and critique anything that quite literally shuts down 1/4 of the Nation's economy. Especially after two months.

Hospitals need a thriving economy around them to survive. If we care about the economy -- and lives -- we must balance the needs of the many and the needs of the vulnerable as best as possible. Focusing on one -- or just the other -- is wrong. I worry about our 30% of our neighbors sent into an unemployment line, structural unemployment (businesses that close and don't/can't return), and a collapsing healthcare system by virtue of economics-- not to mention the mental health toll this is taking on people.

As an openly LGBT person, I remember the early days of the HIV epidemic, where many of the early "facts" were falsehoods. Spurious correlations of data from "experts" which drove people to ostracize those with HIV.

My critique -- and open questioning -- is not about disinformation, it's about education. Let's join together in a constructive discourse and critique of what we know, and what's to come.

> To the well-intentioned individuals accusing me of spreading disinformation: please assume best intent, as I am with you.

As far as I can see no one has assumed anything about your intent. They have called you on the facts, where you were wrong.

That said, you continue to seem to argue against people who do not seem to exist -- certainly none here. No one is saying we should not have a phased, safe, "re-opening" of the economy. No one is saying there has not been severe economic damage done.

But continuing to minimize the severity and danger of this disease, minimize the need for masks, social distancing, and other safety measures, and continuing to advocate for the rapid resumption of "normal life" is dangerous. Period.

We need to move forward, yes. But we need to do so safely. So yes, let's balance the many (sometimes conflicting) needs of the public, and ensure that the effectiveness and importance of simple safety measures like social distancing and masks are not disparaged or conflated as a false binary choice between "destroy the economy" and "open the economy".

Procedure masks do help reduce droplet infection and they remind us and others that the risk is still high. Masks also remind the wearers not to touch their faces which may be the greatest benefit to the wearer of all.
Its seems a really small irritation to bearin exchange for a large benefit.
Be a good citizen..

The scientist in me (yes really MSc BSc, Physical science) say absolutely, gloves as well. However some people already have respiratory issues were a face shield would be better.

The realist in me say availability and cost may a issue, of course I know people can make their own. Some people lack the ability in one way or another.

Now a real social issue is the Karens of the world who take it upon themselves to ridicule and bemoan anyone they simply do not care for yet they dress it up as enforcement of compliance.

While I am no way besmirching MVPD, in some other cities usually larger than MV. Mask enforcement can be arbitrary applied to minority groups but I find that unlikely in MV currently.

Lastly what defines a mask, I know some will find this silly, but here's an example. Bathing suites come in many forms form board shorts to speedos and from a one peice to a string bikini, yet all fall under the umbrella of suites. So what is a mask, would a piece of floss over the nose and mouth each one strand count? What about the mask from the movie scream (yes I know that dates me) but people might think you are going to rob a place or commit violence. Again to most of us this sound laughably silly, but policy makers, law enforcement officials, or members of the court have failed to define what is a mask during this emergency.

@Reality

The Stanford antibody study didn't survive peer review. The criticisms I have read about the Imperial College code are about PRNG seeding bugs for reproducibility. The math itself has not been criticized, and seeding issues don't affect the the estimates that the model produces.

As per earlier posters, masks are already required in business and on public transit. If the writer is suggesting that masks should be required anywhere outdoors, I think that would be an unnecessary overreach. All data points to the virus primarily spreading indoors in close quarters.

From the San Jose Mercury: Web Link
San Jose residents may soon be required to wear face masks outside of their homes to help stop the spread of COVID-19.

While the Santa Clara County Public Health Department has “urged” residents to cover their faces when they go outside, San Jose Vice Mayor Chappie Jones and Councilman Sergio Jimenez want to align with other neighboring Bay Area counties that have put stricter measures in place for face coverings.

“A similar mandate has been implemented in five other Bay Area counties (Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo) and the cities of Cupertino, and Milpitas,” Jones and Jimenez wrote in a memo arguing for a similar policy. “Considering the city of San Jose is the most populous city in the region with a population of over 1 million and 66 percent of the county’s confirmed COVID-19 cases, adherence to this proposed mandate could have significant influence in further flattening the curve and reducing the spread of COVID-19.”

At Wednesday afternoon’s Rules and Open Government Committee meeting, Jones said he was “struck” by the number of people who aren’t wearing masks when he goes out to run essential errands. As businesses prepare to reopen in the coming months, the vice mayor said a mask mandate may help people feel more comfortable going out in public.

Jones and Jimenez have proposed a few exceptions to the rule in line with county health department guidance. Individuals who are exercising outdoors, under the age of 6, have trouble breathing or have been advised not to wear a mask by a medical professional would be exempt from the order.

Councilman Johnny Khamis, who is one of the five members on the subcommittee, said he was supportive of the proposal, but had concerns about enforcement. City Manager Dave Sykes said he had discussed the matter with San Jose police Chief Eddie Garcia and said the department was unsure of the proposed law’s “practicality.”

“Often times we make laws to keep honest people honest,” Jones said in defense. “The vast majority of the people that know it’s a mandate will do the right thing anyway. And then if you have a situation where you have an egregious offense, say you have somebody without a mask that’s in the face of grandma, then that might be an opportunity for the police to intervene. It would be situational.”

Over the last few days, a number of other jurisdictions including the city of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara County Superior Court have also enacted its own mask mandates.

Masks should be required indoors, but I hope you don't mean to also require masks outdoors. There's no benefit, and much pointless annoyance, in that.

Masks should help. Some people - and corporations - argue that we should infect school children and young workers to create "herd immunity." People have been herded like cattle throughout recorded history. President Trump is predicting a vaccine or cure as soon as one day AFTER the November 3 election. Meanwhile, it's important that the cattle return to grazing. Ok. DONE WITH MY diatribe for the day. I suggest folks address any proposal for masks to the County Board of Supervisors. The County Board usually legislates especially for unincorporated parts of the county (not within cities). But the Governor has extraordinary emergency powers pursuant to state legislation enacted in 1970 under then-Governor Ronald Reagan. And the Governor may, in turn, empower lesser bodies and officials to make and enforce emergency rules. Maybe someone will post a link to a staff report in another county recommending a law concerning masks.

What Cupertino and Palo Alto did is make this issue very simple.
"Order generally requires you to wear a face covering when you are not at home" (from the city of Cupertino). Web Link

Mountain View City Council last week reviewed and rejected providing us this same clarity. Rather, the county rule only requires masks in businesses, placing a lot of burden on businesses alone to enforce safety rules with its customers.

Every mask rules make exceptions for personal health conditions and young children (though in Asian countries, face shields are used in many of those cases). The reality is it just takes a few people not wearing masks to continue the spread. Schools and businesses are open in Asia partly because no distinction is made of inside or outside, everyone wears masks or face shields, that's it. The power of that clarity is that the social norms make it nearly impossible to outside without a mask in Asia now.

Anything the city can do, and we can do individually, to broadcast to the wider community to stop respiratory transmission puts in our hands the power to end this crisis, now, not in the fall, or next year. As with most health issues, each time we give reasons for not doing the small daily things, we end up having to do much more costly things in the long run.

>To the well-intentioned individuals accusing me of spreading disinformation: please assume best intent, as I am >with you.

>My basis of opinion was not from TV news or a blog. I read the Stanford study (not the summary in the press) and >also did a source code review of the Royal College model -- often referenced as "the standard." The former points >to a grossly under-reported infection rate (which would then directly correlate to an inflated mortality rate) while >the latter is quite frankly, terrifying in glaring technical inaccuracies which drive highly suspect output.

You see what you want to see. The Stanford study is problematic (it uses the point estimate of false positive rate of the test to derive its conclusion, and its claims would be inconclusive should it use any reasonable range estimate instead; this is long pointed out by many statisticians such as Andrew Gelman).

When I go for runs, for exercise and mental health, I don’t wear a mask. If I were required to I’d have to stop running, which I see a lot of people doing for the same reasons. But hear me out: I avoid anyone walking or running, masked or not, by 10-15 feet even if it means running in the middle of the street to pass them safely.

I wish that we could be trusted to do this. I have never felt threatened by anyone too close to me and make every effort to make everyone around me not feel unsafe by making them, well, not around me.

Thanks Christopher Chiang for the link to Cupertino. You report that the Mountain View City Council already considered and rejected a rule for masks in the city. Lobby the County Board. Supervisor Joe Simitian cares about people and is brilliant. Talk to him. Another member of the County Board is running for higher office (State Senate) in November. Talk to him.

100% agree.
Unfortunately, most people do not seem to be wearing them voluntarily. As a high risk individual, I am often worried about even walking two hundred feet to my mailbox, as I live in a high density townhome complex, and most days the area right outside my front door is crowded with my neighbors who are hanging out -- chatting, playing ball, washing their cars -- without masks.
Essential workers often aren't wearing masks, either. As an example, backing up to my small backyard (and the backyards of several of my neighbors), they are building low income housing. Despite the construction noise, this is generally terrific -- we obviously need more housing in Mt View. However, the workers often don't wear masks; this is particularly dangerous, given that they are using machines that aerosolize particles, and that the construction workers are within mere feet of my own house, and my neighbors' homes. I called the city planning department, and while they said it's unfortunate the workers won't wear masks, there's nothing they can do, since Mt View isn't requiring masks. I currently don't feel safe getting some vitamin D in my own backyard, given that being outside on my patio could easily put me within 6 feet of construction workers who are working on the other side of my back fence, and not wearing masks.
I hope the city reconsiders requiring masks, for all of our safety.

No. If you want to require masks, require them from yourself and your family and friends. If you are afraid of others coughing at you, stay home and save lives.

Agreed!

The Cupertino link provided by Christopher Chiang contains rules for masks in Cupertino outside of home when you are in-doors elsewhere or outdoors when near strangers. So, you would carry a mask just in case.

Avoiding contamination is easier doing things such as walking or lobbying for overpriced masks. Try to imagine doing other things without contaminating a mask before mandating everyone else to wear one. Think about how kids get through a school day that includes eating lunch, drinking water, sitting at a desk, reading, writing, and using bathrooms. Cross-contamination of masks greatly increases personal risk. In the current environment many people that use gloves and masks, fail to replace or wash them frequently enough to be meaningful. How many masks per day is the right number for a student? [If you think one, no credit.]

No, I don't agree with a more stringent policy on masks than the existing SCC policy. If one is outdoors and maintaining adequate social distance (6 feet is a [i]minimum[/i]---the more the better!), there is no good reason to require a mask. The SCC policy does recommend it, and that is good advice, allowing people some personal discretion in the matter.

Hey! Masks Masks are a false sense of security. They encourage people to feel protected and thereby drop their guard. They need to keep 6 feet away from people with or without masks. By encouraging more interactions, masks could make things worse.

If you have a mask on, KEEP AWAY FROM ME ANYWAY!

1) Yes, 100% agree we need to mandate masks.
Read this article for clarity why everyone wearing masks is so important (and easy)
Web Link

2) And to clear up participant comments, no Santa Clara County has not mandated masks. They have only made a "strong recommendation" to wear masks which will not achieve the bare minimum needed level of community adherence to mitigate the spread.

I agree 100% with the author of this article. Since Santa Clara County has not yet mandated masks, at least have the cities mandate it in the meantime.

It would be nice if Mr. Chiang had provided some evidence that the use of masks outdoors was effective. As far as I can tell, the people above who have claimed no such evidence exists are correct. This post does a pretty good job of explaining why:
Web Link

Thank you to Jason for providing a link to the post by Tomas Pueyo. However, as far as I can tell, the data in that article is primarily about confined spaces. Searching for “outdoor” I came up with two instances. The first is this: “For other types of working environments, such as logistics, in-home, or outdoors, here are some other recommendations.” The recommendations link is to the United Kingdom’s recommendations for COVID-19 precautions for various kinds of work. I didn’t read it all, but the outdoor construction section says:
“It is important to know that the evidence of the benefit of using a face covering to protect others is weak and the effect is likely to be small.”

The other occurrence of “outdoor” is:
“If you are not with other people, contagions outdoors are also unlikely, especially under sunlight.”

I have changed my opinions and my behavior several times over the last few months as new data has come in. If someone has data arguing for the effectiveness of wearing masks outdoors under conditions where six foot separation can generally be maintained, I am happy to read it and alter my behavior accordingly. Unfortunately, the conversation around these issues seems to have become divorced from science and moved to what we can “imagine” and one faction or another’s desire to “send a message”.

Stop the paranoia already. Masks are already required in stores and similar places. No I am not wearing it outside. Feel free to keep 6 feet away from me.

I am open to learning more and to changing my mind. Things to consider .

We have jaywalking laws despite that fact that we largely don't enforce them in most scenarios, nor does anyone expect you to walk to a crosswalk when no one is around.
We have seat belt laws, though in reality, if you are driving under 15mph, they are not necessary.

The overall message of them being important is what the law conveys. We don't craft laws that say, jaywalking is illegal when there's cars around or seat belts are required over 15mph.

No one is going to police someone wearing a mask outside alone or far from anyone else. Those who claim such are defending the exceptions, rather than the reality, which is, many people in group interactions outdoors and indoors still don't wear masks in a respiratorily transmitted pandemic.

Don't want to wear masks outdoors alone, great, no one will stop you. Don't want to wear a mask outside 6ft away from other people, yet close enough to be cough distance to others, then you are making our collective sacrifices harder than it needs to be. If we can convince those in this board of this, this crisis can be over now.

So it sounds like we agree that there is no reason to prevent people from walking around outside without masks as long as they can maintain “social distance” and that the current SCC order already requires that they wear masks when they are inside or can’t maintain social distance. Where we differ is on the wisdom of creating a rule that we expect not to be enforced. While I acknowledge that there are a number of such rules on the books, I do not like them. In many places they are used to give authorities the right to arrest people arbitrarily (I like to think Mountain View is better but I don’t know that). They also make us all criminals. As my kids were growing up, I never liked having to explain that we should obey the rules, but we weren’t going to walk a block down to get to their friends who lived across the street. In addition, in the mask case, I think making rules that are not backed up by science opens the door to others claiming that none of the rules we follow to head off this pandemic are based on science. Just read this thread for examples.

What percentage of Americans who have tested positive for the virus never had symptoms? Cite a credible source.

This Monday morning, the NY Times reports 1.5 million confirmed cases with almost 90,000 deaths. That remains a 6% mortality rate. The mortality rate is not the number of deaths out of the number of Americans or grains of sand on a beach. The virus runs in families. When one family member gets it, others follow. So if you get the virus and live with a spouse and two children or parents, that will likely be 4 infectees. Statistically (overall) there will be a 1 in 4 chance (24%) that one of the four will die from the virus. And if those 4 family members, perhaps without immediate symptoms or out of spike, go to work or school, others are infected and in turn infect others still. Moreover, apart from horrendous deaths in expensive ICUs, what serious harm is done to bodies of survivors? Are another 6% temporarily or permanently disabled?

Yes, Please do!
Was in Safeway yesterday and there was a person not wearing a mask it made me uncomfortable since there is a limited amount
of space in grocery stores.

Also agree that the Palo Alto rule is better.

And Palo Alto's coronavirus newsletter is better than Mountain View's as well. We have a lot of progress still to make here.

We have been hearing that one "essential" business in particular will wait no longer to reopen: casinos. They don't make big campaign contributions for nothing. Vegas is especially good at drawing fools - I mean customers - from all around the world and sending them back with less money to squander on other entertainment or expenses. These customers may well be taking back home a new souvenir: Covid-19. Quite a plan.

Reply to Gary
>What percentage of Americans who have tested positive for the virus never had symptoms? Cite a credible source.

You probably will not find this source credible but he provides links to his sources:

"Horowitz: We now know that the majority who contract COVID-19 are asymptomatic. That changes everything" Web Link

You may not find that article convincing but I am not trying to convince you or anyone to put yourselves at greater perceived risk. I am saying that those of us wiling to take the risk should not be prevented from doing so.

I listened to the County Medical Director and multiple doctors from Stanford and ECH on Sunday on Simitian's Pandemic phone update. They all said wearing masks inside very important. Outside not so important as long as social distancing. They also commented on improper wearing of masks is a big problem. I've seen so many people with masks only over their mouth not nose. This includes grocery workers. I'm sure wearing masks all day is very uncomfortable for them, but.... Also if you don't remove your mask carefully and either discard or wash it and your hands, you are putting yourself at risk by getting virus on your hands. They also said wearing gloves all the time might introduce virus into your car or home. Only wear in high risk situations and then discard without touching outside of glove and then wash hands.

@Steven Nelson

Actually, silver bullets are useless against vampires. They work against werewolves, but not vampires (or mummies, or zombies, or any other non-lycanthrope monsters).

The number of confirmed cases nationwide include people with no symptoms. The mortality rate is the percentage of confirmed cases resulting in death. Pretty simple. If more testing finds more confirmed case that are asymptomatic, great. Meanwhile it is 6% dying as I stated above.

To quote the May 4 Santa Clara public health order, "You do not need to wear a face covering when you are exercising outdoors, but you are encouraged to have one with you."

@ Gary

If the data from early in this situation is to be believed, as much as 80% of those with the virus will be asymptomatic. Your 6% number is based only on those who have taken the test and tested either positive or with antibodies. Since many places are restricting testing to those in high-risk situations, why would you think that anything approaching most of the asymptomatic people who are NOT in those professions have been tested? Medical professionals have said that it is likely that many more people have had the disease without symptoms - as much as 5X more. Your 6% number is not based on an unbiased sample and, therefore, is suspect.

@ Gary

BTW, mortality rate is actually the number of fatalities divided by ALL cases. That number is notoriously inaccurate when a disease has many asymptomatic case and is always biased high in that case. COVID-19 has a very high instance of asymptomatic cases.

@Steven Nelson
"Silver Bullets are 100% effective I hear against vampires!"

You can relax Mr. Nelson, "silver bullets" kill ware-wolves, not vampires. ;-)

"this particular one is not "as viable" for as long a time period (half-life) as, for instance, measles air-borne virus. It needs those droplets - for air or surface transmission."

Too bad the so-called "experts" spent so much effort discouraging people from wearing masks for so long before they finally figured it out. The mask one person wears protects other people not the wearer. Your eyes/ears can get you infected too.
(Masks that have an exhale valve are a problem. You can still spread the virus even while wearing one.)

The danger was always from people who had no idea they had the virus.

The "experts" placed too much faith in the WHO/CDC narrative of watching for symptoms and relying on targeted testing instead of preventing asymptomatic carriers from spreading it.

Targeted testing always over-estimates true mortality rate by orders of magnitude.

"Mr. Chiang, like most of us WANTS TO REOPEN in a safe manner."

Sure, but in our fear of the virus, have we already set in motion forces that will kill more people in the long-run than the virus would have?
Have we done so much damage to our economy (and the world economy) that the very people who have always been living close to the edge of survival will now be pushed off the cliff?

"But- LIVE LONG AND PROSPER."

Ironic Star Trek reference there, because the "experts" tell us we can only do one OR the other, but not both, in a CoVID-19 world.

Asymptomatic cases - showing antibodies - are discussed on another thread. Antibodies are created by exposure to some virus. The disease seems to be caused in most victims by a higher viral load. That may be why families and ship-mates and nursing home residents seem to be getting so sick. Among confirmed cases in the USA, 6% have died. Many others may be disabled or more vulnerable to other health problems. It is too serious to be throwing parties. And the next virus could be far worse. Time to rethink national defense and reorganize society - including our HOUSE OF CARDS economy.

@Gary
"The number of confirmed cases nationwide include people with no symptoms."

Well, that total includes SOME of the people with no symptoms, but only a tiny percentage because the testing has been highly targeted on high-probability persons AND because the testing has mainly been for the active virus, NOT so much for the anti-bodies that show past infections.

"The mortality rate is the percentage of confirmed cases resulting in death. Pretty simple."

NO, pretty WRONG actually!

Mortality rate is the ratio of all confirmed CoVID-19 deaths (meaning people who can be shown died of the SARS-CoV2 infection) divided by the total number of all infections by the SARS-CoV2 virus.

The DEATHS must be confirmed as caused by the virus. This includes going back to older samples taken from past deaths that fit the profile.

The total infections are an estimate based on careful random studies of representative samples of the population combined with carefully conducted full population studies, like testing everyone in a specific town, or all prisoners, or all military, etc.

What we reacted to was massive faulty assumptions based on worst-case guesses extrapolated from bogus information from China. The WHO trusted everything the government of China told them and the CDC trusted the WHO.

Hint, it's always easier to cover-up or miscount infections than to cover-up or miscount deaths. The deaths number is always more accurate than infections. If you lived in China you probably would not want that government to know you were sick by reporting yourself.

"If more testing finds more confirmed case that are asymptomatic, great."

Well, the higher the percentage of asymptomatic people, the lower the mortality rate and the greater the chances most of us have already been exposed and thus less justification for the extreme measures we took.

Best estimates for infections without noticeable symptoms has passed 50% and may end up being similar to other viruses at around 80%-90%.

Right here in Santa Clara County we had the first-known US death from CoVID-19 on Feb 6th. We know the virus was in France in December.

Until we have massive numbers, like tens of millions, of people tested for the anti-bodies, we will not know the actual mortality rate, but we will have bogus extremely high false assumptions about the mortality rate.

@Gary
"Antibodies are created by exposure to some virus."

Gary, you have revealed yourself, never let a crisis go to waste, right?

The current anti-body testing is specific to the SARS-CoV2 virus, not to just "some virus".

"Among confirmed cases in the USA, 6% have died."

Which says NOTHING about mortality rate, NOR about the percentage of people in the general population who have had the infection, NOR about what percentage of people who were exposed but did not catch the infection.

The 6% number you spout off shows nothing of scientific value beyond being an object lesson of the lumpy statistical effects of targeted testing.

Like the so-called "cancer clusters" that were "discovered" in wealthy areas with great medical insurance.

"It is too serious to be throwing parties."

When you scream "the sky is falling" and 3 months later people notice the sky is still up there, then you lose credibility and people will go back to normal behavior or even over-act.

"And the next virus could be far worse."

OH, I SEE NOW!
This has nothing to do with SARS-CoV2, this is a huge agenda to alter the entire world to suit your beliefs about how the world SHOULD work.

"Time to rethink national defense and reorganize society - including our HOUSE OF CARDS economy. "

Yep, see there, the "Progressives" always say:
"Never let a crisis go to waste!"

ALWAYS fully EXPLOIT every opportunity to push your entire package of political theories, no matter what the cost to real people.

The amount of the virus delivered to a potential victim is called the DOSE. A low dose may produce some reaction - antibodies - but not the disease that 6% of the time is resulting in death.
SARS-Co-2 is the most recent in a long line of viruses to have infected humans. Thousands more are harbored by animals including bats. If you really think some lying "progressives" shut down the world economy as part of a slick political agenda, there is mental health counseling available - remotely.

@Gary
"SARS-Co-2 is the most recent in a long line of viruses to have infected humans."

Actually, it's SARS-CoV2.

Sure, but none of your agenda has anything to do with preventing such mutations and spreads from happening. As usual, the agenda is always the goal and any event is exploited to push the agenda.

Well-understood, by medical science, human behavior is what creates the conditions that cause an old virus to mutate to infect humans. These behaviors in dealing with animals, especially wildlife, can easily be altered without serious negative impact to society or even to those few people who still do these things.

This is not news, it's been known for over a century.

"If you really think some lying "progressives" shut down the world economy as part of a slick political agenda,"

Never said that, and you know it.

It's about exploiting any fear-inducing event that gets media attention to push the same exact agenda you had BEFORE the new event took place.

It's not that self-described "Progressives" (which by the way they are not fooling anyone with the re-branding from Liberal) planned to shut-down the economy, nor that they created the virus.

It's that no matter what happens in the world the Liberal/Progressives/Democrats/Socialists (or whatever label they are using this week) will exploit any crisis to push their exact same old agenda.

They will always claim that if the world would just give them MORE POWER and would obey their decades-old set of agenda items, they would then use that power to "save" everyone from every threat.

No matter what the crisis, their "solution" is always the same old agenda.