This is dangerous technically as well as politically. Generalized testing for a disease is NEVER a good idea. The reason is that testing is never 100% accurate. The goal of testing is that it be likely that someone who tests positive actually has the disease. With generalized testing this no longer is the case.
Consider some numbers. Suppose a test is 95% accurate in terms of positive results. Therefore 5% of positive results will be false positives. Further let’s assume a 2% infection rate. Thus in a population of 320 million people, 6.4 million have the disease.
Now, we test all of the population. Assuming no false negatives (unrealistic but simplifying), we get 6.4 million true positives and 15.68 million false positives. This means that out of 22.08 million positive tests, only 6.4 million of them, or about 29%, actually are infected.
A positive test in that scenario only means that you have a 29% probability of actually having the disease. Admittedly, I made up the numbers to prove a point, but I don’t think they’re far off. In reality, no public health official prior to COVID ever suggested testing everyone for precisely this reason. Birx certainly would be well aware of this phenomenon. One can only conclude that her goal is to increase the number of positive test results in order to maintain panic and fear among the people.
Someone I know, just recently, was exposed so went to CVS to get tested. It was a requirement for what he does. Test came back positive but when he actually looked at the paperwork he was given it said the result had a 50/50 chance of being correct. So he paid $150 and went to a different place. Almost immediate results that he was negative. So if most of the testing has a 50% chance of being correct that means up to 50% of the positive tests is BS. Maybe that is where they’re getting their asymptomatic results. So just maybe the number of positive tests can be cut in almost half?