Why Does the United States Ignore the Possibility of Using Sniffer Dogs to Detect Covid in Mass Settings?

By Lambert Strether of Corrente.

I don’t know. By Hanlon’s Razor, because we’re dumb. So that’s it, that’s the post. Anyhow, I stan for sniffer dogs to detect Covid (Links May 5, 2020 and August 5, 2020, those being the examples Google allows me to find). And I keep seeing stories about them. So this will be a very simple post. First, I’m going to list all the real-world examples of sniffer dogs detecting Covid that I can find; some are pilots, some are fully implemented. Next, I’ll present the (few) studies I’ve been able to find on their effectiveness. Finally, I’ll briefly discuss the cost of Covid sniffer dogs, and their cost-effectiveness. First, to the examples.

The United States (March 18, 2021). The New York Post:

International researchers have claimed that well-trained dogs have the ability to correctly identify coronavirus patients at reported rates of 94% to 98%, according to some studies. If proven effective, they say these dogs could be an asset to public health officials, who could place the skilled sniffers in high-traffic hubs including airports, train terminals and public events.

Among the first to launch their canine-based coronavirus testing program: NASCAR. Race officials said Wednesday that they had hired the 360 K9 Group, based in Alabama and Florida, to monitor for infected guests during their most recent event — last Sunday’s Cup Series race at Atlanta Motor Speedway — and will continue the effort on a “trial basis” for Sunday’s Folds of Honor QuikTrip 500.

“We think that these dogs and this capability is going to allow us to rapidly confirm that all of those people entering the essential footprint on Sunday — that’s race teams, that’s NASCAR officials, that’s the vendors that work inside the garage — all those folks are COVID-free or not,” said Tom Bryant, NASCAR managing director of racing operations, in a statement on Nascar.com. “The ability to do that has kind of been the math problem that we have continuously tried to solve since March of last year.”

Thailand (March 17, 2021). From Reuters:

Thai sniffer dogs trained to detect COVID-19 in human sweat proved nearly 95% accurate during training and could be used to identify coronavirus infections at busy transport hubs within seconds, the head of a pilot project said.

“The dogs take only one to two seconds to detect the virus,” Professor Kaywalee Chatdarong, the leader of the project at the veterinary faculty of Thailand’s Chulalongkorn University, told Reuters.

“Within a minute, they will manage to go through 60 samples.”

The dogs can detect a volatile organic compound secreted in the sweat of COVID-19 sufferers, even in the absence of disease symptoms, the Thai researcher said.

Belgium (March 5, 2021). Brussels Times:

The KV Oostende football club, in coordination with K9 Detection Belgium, found that dogs could detect coronavirus in a person on the first day of infection, often a full week ahead of a traditional PCR test.

When trained dogs sniffed a swab that was taken from the armpit instead of up the nose, they were able to identify the presence of the coronavirus with an accuracy that was in line with the traditional PCR 99.5% of the time, according to De Standaard.

“There were players who tested negative via PCR, but were found to be positive with us [via the dogs]. Eight or nine days later, they turned out to be positive,” says the football club. “If they had followed our result, the infected player would have gone into quarantine earlier and the virus would not have spread further in the group of players.”

[Covid-sniffing dogs are already being used] by federal police in Belgium, who employ them in elderly care homes as well as airports.

The tracking dogs are unlikely to replace the PCR test in the short term, but the football club is hoping it could be a viable method for readmitting fans to games.

“Having a few thousand people take a PCR test before they are allowed to come to football is not financially and practically impossible,” the club points out. “We must take hold of every possibility to reopen our lives.”

Switzerland (March 3, 2021). ANI:

Geneva, March 3 (ANI/Xinhua): Researchers in Switzerland have launched a training trial to see if sniffer dogs can find out people infected with COVID-19.

Three dogs are being trained by researchers from Geneva University Hospitals (HUG) for four weeks by exposing to samples of sick and healthy people, after which the dogs will go through a sweat-sniffing test to see if they can identify infected individuals, said the hospitals in an online statement on Tuesday.

The study, as a collaboration among HUG, the largest university hospital in Switzerland, and the Swiss Army and United Nations Department of Safety and Security, is expected to have a final result by March.

Initial results from France, Germany and several other countries have shown that trained sniffer dogs are able to recognize people with COVID-19 infections, the statement said..

Sniffer dog could be an inexpensive, relatively simple and friendly alternative of screening methods currently used for slowing down COVID-19 transmission, said Dr Manuel Schibler, physician of the Infectious Diseases Department at HUG.

United States (January 24, 2021) The Denver Post:

The Heat will use coronavirus-sniffing dogs at AmericanAirlines Arena to screen fans who want to attend their games. They’ve been working on the plan for months, and the highly trained dogs have been in place for some games this season where the team has allowed a handful of guests — mostly friends and family of players and staff.

At Heat games, fans arriving for the game will be brought to a screening area and the detection dogs will walk past. If the dog keeps going, the fan is cleared; if the dog sits, that’s a sign its detect the virus and the fan will be denied entry.

Germany (February 3, 2021). Reuters:

“We did a study where we had dogs sniffing samples from COVID-positive patients and we can say that they have a 94% probability in our study … that they can sniff them out,” said Holger Volk, head of the veterinary clinic.

“So dogs can really sniff out people with infections and without infections, as well as asymptomatic and symptomatic COVID patients,” he added.

Stephan Weil, premier of Lower Saxony, the state of which Hanover is the capital, said he was impressed with the study and called for a feasibility tests before the sniffer dogs are put to use in everyday life, such as on people attending concerts.

Finland (January 1, 2020). United Nations:

Finland’s Helsinki-Vantaa airport has started using detection dogs to sniff out passengers possibly infected with the coronavirus. Dogs are providing a cheap, fast and effective alternative method of testing people for the virus. Around 100 travellers a day and 2200 per month have been queuing up for the test since the booth was set up in September. Testing has shown an accuracy level of nearly 100% even 5 days before actual symptoms appear.

These dogs are part of a pilot scheme project to keep the flying public safe and reduce the spread of COVID-19, alongside other measures. Currently, there are 6 dogs operating at Helsinki- Vantaa airport. The dogs are scheduled to continue screening arriving passengers at least until the end of the year, but according to the project leaders, the project is likely to continue until summer 2021.

Chile (December 23, 2020). Reuters:

The task of sniffing out passengers infected with COVID-19 at Chile’s Santiago international airport is going to the dogs.

A team of Golden Retrievers and Labradors sit when they smell the virus and get a treat. The canines sport green “biodetector” jackets with a red cross.

Passengers at an airport health checkpoint wipe their necks and wrists with gauze pads that are then put in glass containers and sent to the dogs to see if they detect COVID-19.

Chile’s Carabinero police trained the dogs and Inspector General Esteban Diaz said dogs have more than 3 million olfactory receptors, more than 50 times those of humans, so were uniquely placed to help fight the coronavirus.

Dubai (August 4, 2020). The Sun:

In a statement, Dubai’s Ministry of Interior said: “Data and studies showed that detection of presumed Covid-19 cases achieved approximately 92 per cent in overall accuracy.

“Figures indicate that dogs can quickly detect infected cases, help protect key sites, effectively deal with huge crowds and secure large events, airports, etc.”

The new sniffer dog scheme works by taking samples from passengers armpits before it is placed inside a container in an isolated room.

Specially-trained canines then sniff the samples through a funnel-like contraption.

If they detect coronavirus, the passenger is then directed to take the nasal PCR test.

The dogs never come in direct contact with the passengers.

This method has been used to detect several other diseases that can affect body odor such as cancer and malaria.

NASCAR and the Miami Heat moving into the implementation stage — it would be sports — is impressive. Also impressive is that this seems to be an organic phenomenon; I don’t see Fauci or Walensky on the teebee recommending sniffer dogs. Or WHO or CDC (I can’t find anything about sniffer dogs using their search function).[1]

Now let’s turn to some studies — even though NASCAR, at least, didn’t wait for them. (It may be that the pervasive use of sniffer dogs to detect drugs has prepared the public mind for the new purpose of detecting Covid, and so no action from our sclerotic Federal public health system is required. Perhaps that’s for the best.)

First, from Journal of Osteopathic Medicine, “Toward the use of medical scent detection dogs for COVID-19 screening.” This is a review of the literature, which is thin. From the Abstract:

In August 2020 and October 2020, the first author (T.D.) searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, and additional news articles using keyword phrases including “COVID scent dogs,” “COVID sniffer dogs,” and “COVID detection dog,” returning a total of 13 articles, nine of which were duplicates. Four remaining peer-reviewed studies dedicated to determining the feasibility and efficacy of detecting and screening individuals who may be infected by the COVID-19 virus with scent detection dogs were then examined. In this narrative review, the authors describe the methodologies and results of the remaining four studies, which demonstrated that the sensitivity, specificity, and overall success rates reported by the summarized scent detection studies are comparable to or better than the standard RT-PCR and antigen testing procedures, meaning that scent detection dogs can likely be effectively employed to nonintrusively screen and identify individuals infected with the COVID-19 virus in hospitals, senior care facilities, schools, universities, airports, and even large public gatherings for sporting events and concerts.

(I have to rely on the abstract’s conclusions, because so many journal articles are paywalled. The following two articles could be a subset of the four they found, or not.)

Second, from BMC Infectious Diseases, “Sniffer dogs as a screening/diagnostic tool for COVID-19: a proof of concept study“:

Sniffer dogs are able to detect certain chemical particles and are suggest to be capable of helping diagnose some medical conditions and complications, such as colorectal cancer, melanoma, bladder cancer, and even critical states such as hypoglycemia in diabetic patients. With the global spread of COVID-19 throughout the world and the need to have a real-time screening of the population, especially in crowded places, this study aimed to investigate the applicability of sniffer dogs to carry out such a task.

The sensitivity of this test was as high as 86% and its specificity was 92.9%. In addition, the positive and negative predictive values were 89.6 and 90.3%, respectively.

Conclusion: Dogs are capable of being trained to identify COVID-19 cases by sniffing their odour, so they can be used as a reliable tool in limited screening.

“Limited screening” is, I would think, fine, assuming the rate of false negatives is very low. Presumably those who the dogs detect can be moved aside and given a more accurate, if slower, test.

Third, a preprint from bioRxiv, “Use of Canine Olfactory Detection for Covid‐19 Testing Study On U.A.E. Trained Detection Dog Sensitivity“:

A total of 1368 trials were performed during validation, including 151 positive and 110 negative samples. Each line‐up had one positive sample and at least one negative sample. The dog had to mark the positive sample, randomly positioned behind one of the cones. The dog, handler and data recorder were blinded to the positive sample location. The calculated overall sensitivities were between 71% and 79% for three dogs, between83% and 87% for three other dogs, and equal to or higher than 90% for the remaining 15 dogs (more than two thirds of the 21 dogs). After calculating the overall sensitivity for each dog using all line‐ups, “matched” sensitivities were calculated only including line‐ups containing COVID‐19 positive and negative samples strictly comparable on confounding factors such as diabetes, anosmia, asthma, fever, body pain, diarrhoea, sex, hospital, method of sweat collection and sampling duration. Most of the time, the sensitivities increased after matching.

“Sensitivities increased after matching” translates to Federal standards and a professional association to me; systematize the training to bring as many dogs as possible to the highest level.

Turning now to cost-effectiveness, certainly professional sports teams and airports have answered that question, at their scale. Perhaps cost effectiveness is the problem. Returning to Finland’s example:

The pilot programme is costing approximately 300,000 euros which is significantly lower than for laboratory-based testing methods.

“PCR test cost approximately 4 million euros per month and sniffing less than 100,000 euros” says docent in clinical research of companion animals, Anna Hielm-Bjorkman of Helsinki University.

To look once more at the question the headline, contrast this approach, also proposed for sporting events and airports: “New York hospital launches COVID-19 saliva testing for those seeking to attend large events, fly internationally“:

Mount Sinai Hospital in New York is launching a COVID-19 saliva-testing program that could prove to be a game-changer for reopening large-scale events.

Holy moley. A game-changer! More:

The program was unveiled Monday and will offer “easy, effective and accurate COVID-19 test for the public” at four testing locations in Manhattan, according to Dr. David Reich, the hospital’s president. He told ABC News that the saliva testing is “equal in accuracy to nasal swabs.”

The test costs $139.50 and isn’t covered by insurance.

The test mainly will be used by those paying for the convenience of quickly being able to attend events such as professional sports or the theater, catering events through the state’s Excelsior Pass app program, or taking an international flight, Reich added.

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo announced the launch of the Excelsior Pass program last month to confirm an individual’s recent negative COVID-19 test or proof of vaccination, data that could be used to help venues reopen in accordance with state Department of Health guidelines. Venues that announced they’ll use the app include Madison Square Garden in Manhattan and the Times Union Center in Albany.

Results from saliva tests should be available within 48 hours, but about 85% will be available within just 24 hours.

To take the test, patients can’t eat or drink anything, brush or floss their teeth or use mouthwash, or smoke or chew gum for one hour prior. The test also can be administered to young children, who may find it more comfortable than a nasal swab.

So, we have Option A (dogs): A test that’s quick, cheap, and accurate. And we have oPption B (Mount Sinai): A test that’s costly, not covered by insurance, having complex eligibility requirements (not eating or drinking), that’s slow. And requires an app. And is politically wired.[1]

Which do you think our health care system will choose: Option A (dogs), or Option B (Mount Sinai)? My money is on Option B, but perhaps I’m too pessimistic.

* * *

There is the issue of scale: To be fair to Mount Sinai, they can probably have their machines manufactured off shore, and all the rental collection over here and the app won’t have that much overhead. So perhaps the Mount Sinai solution is easier to scale in our financialized society, given the givens. On the other hand, there is already a sniffer dog industry, along with a police dog industry, a medical dog industry, and a seeing-eye dog industry, and there are a lot of dogs in the world. Somehow, I don’t think private equity is going to be able adapt factory farming techniques to training sniffer dogs, so scaling out sniffer dogs would probably require, besides Federal standards for accuracy, funding for a lot of local small businesses. That’s not a bad thing. Why not give small business sniffer dog projects a nice fat chunk of stimulus money?


[1] Here is an article from The Atlantic. The content is exclusively cute pictures of sniffer dogs. I expected more.

[2] Probably gameable, too. How long before some clever person finds the mouthwash that defeats the test?

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Guest Post, Pandemic on by .

About Lambert Strether

Readers, I have had a correspondent characterize my views as realistic cynical. Let me briefly explain them. I believe in universal programs that provide concrete material benefits, especially to the working class. Medicare for All is the prime example, but tuition-free college and a Post Office Bank also fall under this heading. So do a Jobs Guarantee and a Debt Jubilee. Clearly, neither liberal Democrats nor conservative Republicans can deliver on such programs, because the two are different flavors of neoliberalism (“Because markets”). I don’t much care about the “ism” that delivers the benefits, although whichever one does have to put common humanity first, as opposed to markets. Could be a second FDR saving capitalism, democratic socialism leashing and collaring it, or communism razing it. I don’t much care, as long as the benefits are delivered. To me, the key issue — and this is why Medicare for All is always first with me — is the tens of thousands of excess “deaths from despair,” as described by the Case-Deaton study, and other recent studies. That enormous body count makes Medicare for All, at the very least, a moral and strategic imperative. And that level of suffering and organic damage makes the concerns of identity politics — even the worthy fight to help the refugees Bush, Obama, and Clinton’s wars created — bright shiny objects by comparison. Hence my frustration with the news flow — currently in my view the swirling intersection of two, separate Shock Doctrine campaigns, one by the Administration, and the other by out-of-power liberals and their allies in the State and in the press — a news flow that constantly forces me to focus on matters that I regard as of secondary importance to the excess deaths. What kind of political economy is it that halts or even reverses the increases in life expectancy that civilized societies have achieved? I am also very hopeful that the continuing destruction of both party establishments will open the space for voices supporting programs similar to those I have listed; let’s call such voices “the left.” Volatility creates opportunity, especially if the Democrat establishment, which puts markets first and opposes all such programs, isn’t allowed to get back into the saddle. Eyes on the prize! I love the tactical level, and secretly love even the horse race, since I’ve been blogging about it daily for fourteen years, but everything I write has this perspective at the back of it.


  1. Tom Doak

    The sniffer dogs used as biosecurity in NZ and Australia customs lines are wonderful. When they sit, grandma suddenly confesses she forgot all about the cookies in her suitcase.

    Last week I looked up how I might get a 2-day turnaround on a COVID test when I need to fly internationally again, because it seems to be a requirement now to go almost anywhere, and there is nowhere [that I know of] where you can guarantee that fast a turnaround in my hometown. And it turns out that Delta Airlines has partnered with a company who can turn around the test and electronically provide a thumbs up for you, for a similar fee of $100 and change. [You’ll need it each way, of course.]

    P.S. Did Cuomo name the “Excelsior Pass” himself?

    1. Jeotsu

      If you were curious, NZ International airports currently use 4 types of sniffer dogs. The bomb and drug dogs tend to be behind the scenes, the cash dogs are both among passengers and checking the luggage out back, and the food dogs are waiting for you in baggage claim.
      The types of cash they are trained to sniff out varies a bit, based on where the highest-risk cash smuggling routes link back to. USD, GBP, AUS$, and Chinese currency have all been on the list at various times.

  2. cocomaan

    Being ignored for the same reason that the FDA won’t bother to approve the scratch and sniff Covid test on the other side of the smell spectrum, this time working with terrible human noses (compared to a dog’s).


    It’s not a perfect test. But it’s a decent test and could be produced at almost zero cost.

    Zero cost? WHAT?

    Can’t have that, someone has to make some money off the disaster!

  3. badbird

    The sensitivity of this test was as high as 86% and its specificity was 92.9%. In addition, the positive and negative predictive values were 89.6 and 90.3%, respectively.

    Conclusion: Dogs are capable of being trained to identify COVID-19 cases by sniffing their odour, so they can be used as a reliable tool in limited screening.

    “Limited screening” is, I would think, fine, assuming the rate of false negatives is very low. Presumably those who the dogs detect can be moved aside and given a more accurate, if slower, test.

    You don’t have to assume anything to do the approximate calculation, The article tells you what the sensitivity and specificity is, around 7% of all dog tests will be false positive, plus the test will miss 14% of all true positives.

    If the prevalence of infection is 0.5% roughly 1 in 14 of the positives will be true and the other 13 false… 92% of the time the dogs are lying about a positive and you will already waste the time of 7% of everyone going through your dog test with false positives and to make it worse around 10% of real positives just slip straight through as false negatives.

    not reliable

    1. Statisad

      This was first thought as well when I saw the numbers. It’s almost completely useless, outside of very specific set-ups and even then the usefulness is limited.

    2. vlade

      The PCR test have clinical (as in real-world conditions, not lab) sensitivyt of less than 90%. Which is why tests may be re-run.

      As a cheap pre-selection, dogs are good-enough real-life solution. Better than antigen tests.

      1. Lambert Strether Post author

        > As a cheap pre-selection, dogs are good-enough real-life solution. Better than antigen tests.

        Exactly. It doesn’t matter that the dogs are not perfect, it matters that they are as reliable, and in all other respects better than, the tests we have.

        I also speculate that their accuracy can be improved with standards and training and a professional association. Let’s let the dogs display adaptivity.

  4. Cuibono

    well for one thing: where is the profit in that? You know how much $ is in testing? The profits are huge.

  5. Turley

    Because too much money is being made and grabbed with the current everyone living in fear instead of carriers being identified?

    1. Yves Smith

      Help me. Did you manage to miss the record stimulus to make up for the economic damage? The fact that lots of landlords are taking huge hits due to moratoriums and vacancies? Come to NYC if you need visual evidence. Or have a look at the airline industry, or the restaurant industry, or the conference industry, or business hotels. The claim that Covid is

  6. Raymond Sim

    Because they work!

    The first case of community transmission detected in the U.S. was in the county next to ours. On the morning we woke up to that news it quickly became clear to my wife and myself (She’s a plant virologist, PCR holds no mysteries for her.) that not only did state and local authorities not want the populace to know what was going on, they’d just as soon not know themselves. Haven’t noticed much change since.

    The Dems don’t want to govern? And how!

  7. Synoia

    Because sniffer dogs give no mechanism to shovel Billions of Dollars to corporation to “invent ” some expensive technology.

    1. Anders K

      Put the dogs inside a box, supply a mechanism for letting in air (but nothing out), then train the dogs to push one of two buttons (for positive/negative), send the results unencrypted to “the cloud”, download the result and hey presto!

      A high tech Internet reliant biotech solution with a built in expiry date and unnecessary misery. Time to rake in the government money!

      You just have to think inside the box.

  8. The Rev Kev

    Sniffer dogs are so embedded into our culture that you even see them in fiction like in “World War Z” where they are used to detect those infected with the zombie virus where they would be friendly with people going by them but if one was infected, they would go absolutely feral at them causing them to be pulled aside and to be sent away.

    But how sensitive can these dog’s noses be? They actually have cadaver dogs and I read once that they have used them to find Civil War dead for reburial. When I went looking for a source for this, found that they have even been used to find the dead from the American Revolution. Whoa!


    But the fact of the matter is that even if they were 100% effective, they cannot be sufficiently monetized to make some group of technocrats even more wealthy so will never be taken up on a governmental scale. If they had stared a year ago when first reports of their possible use started to come out, they could be by now at each airport making air travel much more safer as those dogs weeded out the carriers so that they could be tested and watched. In the years to come, you will see them mentioned in history books on the virus – in the chapter called ‘Wasted Opportunities.’

  9. ML

    Because the temperature checks are supposed to be nothing more than safety theater. What would you do anyway if your dogs caught someone about to board a plane or go to a sporting event/concert? If you deny them, are you going to give the person (and possibly their entire group) a full refund plus other expenses paid (travel, parking, etc)? What if the dogs sniffed a false positive…what sort of potential lawsuits could that expose you to?

  10. LawnDart

    Day 2 post-Moderna vaccine shot #2: first shot was a breeze, and day 1 of this was just peachy. But today I definitely wasn’t 100%: mild headache, aches mostly in the shoulders and neck (aside from the arm where they stuck me), chills, and a bit of dizziness– kinda out-of-it, in general, but I’ve suffered through hangovers far worse than this so I should emphasize that the side-effects (today) are pretty mild.

    I would add my voice to the recommendation that it might be wise to plan for a day or two off post-vaccine to spend the time in bed or on the couch with some unserious and uncomplicated entertainments: if you skate-through with no ill-effects, I’d still lounge about like an old dog, strictly as a precautionary measure– my 2-cents, for what it’s worth…

    As we enter year two of this pandemic, I have the feeling that the virus response is still being horribly mishandled, and that our rough-shod, haphazard efforts to combat the virus will only result in more infectious variants. Perhaps that is what vaccine and test makers are planning for. As we see in dogs vs. swabs, the K-9s really don’t add much to the bottom-line.

    If I were an evil capitalist, I’d want a slow, uneven roll-out of vaccines (and later, boosters) to allow the virus time and opportunities to mutate in order to keep my products relevant and profitable: worldwide cooperation and coordination is not in my interest; I would want the bug to evolve in human reservoirs/hosts in such a way as to elude earlier versions of vaccines– muh-ha-ha-ha! (Eyes gleaming, hands rubbing together furiously…)

    [OK, maybe add paranoia and delusions to the list of known vaccine side-effects… …maybe I should check Snopes to see what they have to say about covid profiteering, and then I can put my simple and delicate mind at ease.]

  11. PlutoniumKun

    I think a strong element at work here is the preference among trained scientists* for something they can control – or to be precise – gives them the perception of control. I’ve read over the years lots of studies indicating that dogs can detect illness and disease at least as well as, if not better than, the ‘conventional’ tests. But there is something about having a slobbering Lab(rador) sniff a person that just doesn’t feel right to many scientists, so the usual response to studies like those quoted by Lambert is ‘oh, thats very interesting’, while they go on to issue contracts for standardised lab(oratory) tests. If you raise these ideas, you usually get responses like ‘yeah, but how do we know the dog has been trained right? What if the dog gets a cold? what if it bites someone and we get sued?’, which are legitimate questions, but no more difficult to address than problems with conventional approaches. Its often in poorer countries that you find doctors and scientists much more open to cheap and simple unorthodox tests.

    * by ‘scientists’ I mean the wider community of trained experts in health and monitoring, including those who dole out grants and write up contract specifications and protocols.

  12. rowlf

    There are air testers that are used on aircraft for locating and identifying chemical fumes. So far the manufacturers have stayed away from using these devices for medical or customs purposes.

    In the 1960s the US Army was using a people-sniffer mounted on helicopters and reported good performance, which seems counter-intuitive with the rotor downwash from the helicopter.

  13. Jeremy Grimm

    The effectiveness of quarantine, face masks, strict lockdowns, travel restrictions, and widespread testing had been adequately proven as the Corona virus first began to spread in the US. Most of these measures for dealing with contagious disease are very old. This post concerns the use of trained dogs for detecting Corona infection, but inquiry why sniffer dogs or some other similarly rapid, effective, and relatively inexpensive method for Corona testing has not been widely adopted, leaves unasked why US policy has insisted on using PCR testing in spite of its many ‘drawbacks’ — not least among them the remarkably slow test results provided. It leaves unasked why the US so immediately focused its efforts and expenditures on development of experimental vaccine techniques. Given similar Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and blanket legal immunities could conventional vaccines have been similarly developed at Warp Speed? It leaves unasked why there has been so little testing of the millions of human guinea pigs receiving one of the three experimental vaccines. Testing might have better resolved some of the questions that still linger around the effectiveness of the new vaccines — like whether the vaccinated can spread Corona. There are other questions to ask but I believe the above suffice to justify my wonder of what kind of simple incompetence could offer answers.

  14. marku52

    Impressive research Lambert (hand claps)

    As you point it, there is no BIG money in it. Hence it will be buried alongside HCQ, VitD and Ivermectin.

    Mylan will invent a semi-accurate test that costs $100 per, and get Dad to require it be used daily at all schools. The media will swoon.


  15. Olivier

    Our society has a disease of technology worship that mostly precludes using cheap, non-tech solutions. This is not new: (re-)read the sad story of Felicia the Fermilab ferret. She performed admirably (in 1971) yet was still replaced by a robotic device. We are idiots.

Comments are closed.