Two reasons for that:
The US is quickly going the way of Italy and Spain. 5,000 dead in a month, (href="https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/index.html"> annual US flu death toll in 2012 was around 12,000) and it's not even up to steam, yet! Both countries have lost a lot of health professionals and are begging for more.
...Most countries don't have the resources to do extensive testing.
A couple of weeks ago, a hospital administrator in Toronto, Canada (about 20 miles north of the US) noted that his one hospital had done more tests than the entire USA. Here in British Columbia, Canada, we've done more testing than the entire USA. I'm not talking countries. I'm talking singular hospitals and small provinces (BC population: 5Million).
Wow, what a fucking shock. According to Liberals, everything is the fault of people that Liberals hate. Never mind that a month ago NYC's Democrat health chief was encouraging the public to go outside and hug a Chinese guy or else you're racist, it's all Trump's fault.
That was Feb 9 -- 7 weeks ago
I am waiving the following requirements for your product during the duration of this EUA:
yep.. Sounds like Trump. You can make a lot more tests if you don't have to worry about the quality
Like somebody else said: I'm fine with false positives, but false negatives could have misdiagnosed carriers wandering the city infecting people. It'll look good for Trump until,, 3 weeks down the road, you've got a thousand more victims cascaded from the one false negative.
We really do need to see some stats on this test. I can't blindly trust anything under Trump's direction.
I'm not a scholar on this, but the church didn't officially consider natives of the Americas to have souls, and so to be 'human'. In that context, you could argue that looking at (or drawing) a naked native woman to be technically the same as looking at an undressed monkey. It was certainly the logic that they used to excuse acts of genocide.
That would also make raping a (unconverted) native the equivalent of bestiality (which may or may not have been illegal). Things start to get very strange when you stop calling other people human.
Now the 'Space force' is limited to building radar systems to detect Mexican drug runners using catapults to fling their drugs over the new border wall.
Alas! it was an idea with such high aspirations
...and the smart ones use a pen to number their cards in case of misadventure with the stack before it gets into the card reader.
Though, mind you, real programmers, if you want to go back far enough, were writing machine code and peeking and poking things arounds and managing the CPUs registers, memory, interrupt handlers and that sorts of stuff the hard way (which I don't miss, much as I don't miss manually managing DMA and Interrupts on hardware). And when prototyping, sometimes you'd be burning your own ROMs or EPROMs and manually aligning the code in the ROM (or figuring out how to tell the processor to look at a non-default location to start loading code from).
And really, real programmers use dip switches.
Yes, I am a Code-a-saurus Rex... and one who feels his rendezvous with the tar pits coming....
(I kind of gave up when the university engineering program I had attended changed first year programming and mechanical drafting to shy away from teaching FORTRAN, Pascal and how to manually create shapes without fancy toolkits (to understand the basis of CAD systems). Replacing those sorts of things? How to program Excel statements and macros and how to use Word.
Not going to argue that Excel doesn't have programming or that spreadsheets don't matter, but one really should at least know some of the most commonly used programming languages if only to learn what hardware really uses underneath and how types of languages enforce paradigms in how to program.
I can't count the number of times newer graduates were having problems with some moderate complexity task because the code they wrote showed they didn't actually understand the underlying understanding of interrupts, how processes/threads/skeins/etc worked, or how memory was managed and accessed by the hardware. You get so far from it with toolkits, you can end up using the toolkit in ways that are really not great choices for efficiency or bug free code.
I don't want to go back to programming 80C196 or 8086 iASM, or even go back to C, but it's good to know you can step down to that level if you really have a critical type of app where you need performance or need to do something in a way the higher level language doesn't easily support. The cases are rare, but somebody who never studied the hardware, never studies the lower level languages.... will have one heck of a time in those instances.
Last observation:
There are languages that make some tasks easier and more efficient for any given task. However, if you are looking to higher talent, if you get the one guy who knows FancyLanguageX and he writes some cool cryptic code with it then gets hit by a car, the rest of the dev team can have their hands full trying not to bust the deployed product when they don't really get the details of FancyLanguageX's paradigm or idiosyncrasies.
In real production environments, Java, C, C++, C# and some of of the mobile languages are pretty much the goto (ignoring web front ends like LAMP setups) with some scripting (BASH, Perl, Python among them). Why? Because you can find replacement programmers if your star developer dies, gets hired away, or collapses into stress leave. The odds are someone else can reasonably pick up the mantle and move ahead.
Neat stuff is good, but if it takes a new to the task but experienced programmer a long time to puzzle his way through the detail of what's happening in a bit of code written in an uncommon tool, then the advantage may largely be lost (*exception: efficiency matters for stuff like large scaleable web services and database systems, so some less common tools may be justified there... but pay your team well and make sure to train up enough so that one car accident doesn't bork the company).
John Likes Prolog.
Prolog likes Mary.
I once chatted with the fellow who invented LISP, following up on a slashdot Q&A he did where he broke programming languages into (IIRC) more than 10 categories of language types and gave a few examples of each.
His view was that languages are tools and each has strengths and weaknesses and programmers should learn at least one from each category to understand that kind of programming tool and what it is or is not good for.
He gave me a respect for *why* LISP existed (something I did not get from my survey of languages course in first year).
He was (or perhaps still is, not sure if he's still with us) a wonderful person to talk with and generous with his perspective.
Stellar rays prove fibbing never pays. Embezzlement is another matter.
