Coronavirus testing (1 Viewer)

[dtc]

What is the deal with the tests?

Seems like I'm reading we are processing 30% fewer tests this week than last and we've never been testing anywhere near what we should have been.

What happened to the drive-thru testing and all that and why in this nation are we having a hard time putting our hands on freaking cotton swabs?

I find it terribly unnerving to know we haven't been able to test as well as Korea or really anywhere yet.

What gives?

 

[Beach Friends]

Germany is doing a much better job controlling their outbreak than we have done. That’s just a fact and not really debatable. Their testing and how they are doing it is the key. Their positive rate is what, 8%? Going from memory, and I think I saw where SK was 2%.

What this means is that they are doing contact tracing and tracking down people who were exposed before they can spread the virus. When they find someone with symptoms who tests positive, they then go ahead and test everyone in their extended family, their coworkers, etc. everyone they were in close contact with, even though they are asymptomatic. That way they could find the 2 or 3 people who contracted the virus and get them into self-isolation before they infect 2-3 other people. Of course then the other 15 people or so test negative, which drives down the rate of positive testing. So our 20% indicates we are not testing enough people.

We are only testing people who show up with symptoms. We aren’t really testing anyone until they show up with symptoms, and that‘s very foolish. It’s a function of us not having enough tests and testing supplies to do this right. So, by the time we test someone, chances are they have already infected those 2-3 other people, and now those people are unknowingly infecting 2-3 more people each. It’s insanity to open up society until we can test correctly but that’s what we seem to be about to do, at least in some states. This will lead to many more deaths than would happen if we had a competent response.

Anyone who argues against this just fundamentally doesn’t understand what is going on.

Argues against what exactly?

On one hand you say we don't have the testing capacity to test in the manner you described. On the other, you say it's foolish not to test in that manner.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It would be great if politicians could rise above partisanship in any such inquiry. But, we all know that they will not.

BTW, that Stanford study is out. It hasn't been peer reviewed and I have no idea the extent to which one can use it - but purportedly it does indicate .that the infection rate for the area studied was much higher than previously thought.

I would like to see more research on the issue of whether the virus has been in the States longer than what is currently believed.

Yes, I saw that study, and I think there may be another that indicates the same thing (or maybe I saw the same study referenced in two different places). Anyway, I think that would be good news if it bears out.

 

[MT15]

Argues against what exactly?

On one hand you say we don't have the testing capacity to test in the manner you described. On the other, you say it's foolish not to test in that manner.

Argues that we are not doing too little testing compared to Germany. That our testing is on a par with SK. It’s simply not true.

It is foolish to test only symptomatic people and then not do the contact tracing and testing. As an epidemiologist I read once said, it’s like we lost 10-20 years of knowledge about how to handle an epidemic.

The original sin is to not have rolled out a robust testing program, but to instead go with the current system of having each state and a whole handful of private firms try to do what could be handled much better by a federal program. We have constant shortages of one thing or another. Swabs, Media, reagents, have all caused a bottleneck in our testing at one time or another. (And in the beginning the CDC test was just defective, I almost forgot about that.)

So we are forced to go forward only testing symptomatic people and not doing the follow up we should be doing. It’s been a cluster from the beginning, two months ago, and we still don’t have what we need. It’s been horrible, and has caused thousands of needless deaths. This isn‘t partisan, it’s just our reality. It’s a tragic dereliction of duty.

 

[Beach Friends]

Argues that we are not doing too little testing compared to Germany. That our testing is on a par with SK. It’s simply not true.

It is foolish to test only symptomatic people and then not do the contact tracing and testing. As an epidemiologist I read once said, it’s like we lost 10-20 years of knowledge about how to handle an epidemic.

The original sin is to not have rolled out a robust testing program, but to instead go with the current system of having each state and a whole handful of private firms try to do what could be handled much better by a federal program. We have constant shortages of one thing or another. Swabs, Media, reagents, have all caused a bottleneck in our testing at one time or another. (And in the beginning the CDC test was just defective, I almost forgot about that.)

So we are forced to go forward only testing symptomatic people and not doing the follow up we should be doing. It’s been a cluster from the beginning, two months ago, and we still don’t have what we need. It’s been horrible, and has caused thousands of needless deaths. This isn‘t partisan, it’s just our reality. It’s a tragic dereliction of duty.

You almost forgot that the CDC test was defective? Well that's the reason we fell behind. It's also a big part of why we have private companies in the fray instead of one program - and thank God we had the private medical sector step up.

Yes, more testing would be better - but if extending our testing would overwhelm the system at point then it is not really an option. I guess we can pretend it is and complain that we are not doing it.

 

[not2rich]

Argues that we are not doing too little testing compared to Germany. That our testing is on a par with SK. It’s simply not true.

It is foolish to test only symptomatic people and then not do the contact tracing and testing. As an epidemiologist I read once said, it’s like we lost 10-20 years of knowledge about how to handle an epidemic.

The original sin is to not have rolled out a robust testing program, but to instead go with the current system of having each state and a whole handful of private firms try to do what could be handled much better by a federal program. We have constant shortages of one thing or another. Swabs, Media, reagents, have all caused a bottleneck in our testing at one time or another. (And in the beginning the CDC test was just defective, I almost forgot about that.)

So we are forced to go forward only testing symptomatic people and not doing the follow up we should be doing. It’s been a cluster from the beginning, two months ago, and we still don’t have what we need. It’s been horrible, and has caused thousands of needless deaths. This isn‘t partisan, it’s just our reality. It’s a tragic dereliction of duty.

The reason for "the current system of having each state and a whole handful of private firms try to do what could be handled much better by a federal program" is to allow our "President" to avoid accountability and put the blame on governors if things go bad. That's why hard, tedious grunt work like testing is solely a state responsibility according to him. He just wants to make grand pronouncements like he used to on The Apprentice. If things go somewhat well, he'll be there to take credit of course. But if things get forked, he's always looking for someone to blame - Democratic governors, China, the WHO, take your pick. Actually, it's not that random - he'll blame whoever FNC tells him to blame.

 

[JimEverett]

People are infectious long before they show symptoms.

I am sure it is possible but WHO says the risk is very low. Not to say they are gospel or anything, but it seems weird to be so sure they are wrong.

The risk of catching COVID-19 from someone with no symptoms at all is very low.

Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19)

WHO is continuously monitoring and responding to this outbreak. This Q&A will be updated as more is known about COVID-19, how it spreads and how it is affecting people worldwide. For more information, check back regularly on WHO’s coronavirus pages...

www.who.int

.

 

[not2rich]

I am sure it is possible but WHO says the risk is very low. Not to say they are gospel or anything, but it seems weird to be so sure they are wrong.

Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19)

WHO is continuously monitoring and responding to this outbreak. This Q&A will be updated as more is known about COVID-19, how it spreads and how it is affecting people worldwide. For more information, check back regularly on WHO’s coronavirus pages...

www.who.int

.

More deflection. Or is it a red herring? Or what BF would call a whataboutism?

In any event, it's definitely NOT addressing the point.l

 

[JimEverett]

More deflection. Or is it a red herring? Or what BF would call a whataboutism?

In any event, it's definitely NOT addressing the point.l

Defelction? This makes no sense.

The point I was responding to seems clear
The quote from WHO is clear and addresses the exact point I was responding to.

Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary? Or some remedial reading comprehension classes?

 

[not2rich]

Defelction? This makes no sense.

The point I was responding to seems clear
The quote from WHO is clear and addresses the exact point I was responding to.

Perhaps you should invest in a dictionary? Or some remedial reading comprehension classes?

If you want to believe people who are asymptomatic can't transmit the virus, that's up to you. But that's not why you linked the WHO source, is it?

 

[JimEverett]

If you want to believe people who are asymptomatic can't transmit the virus, that's up to you.

So you discount what WHO says?

But that's not why you linked the WHO source, is it?

This is bizarre. Why do you think I linked the WHO source?

Is it a conspiracy or something? LOL

 

[Beach Friends]

So you discount what WHO says?




This is bizarre. Why do you think I linked the WHO source?

Is it a conspiracy or something? LOL

You have to love when someone pretends to know your secret motive and you have no idea what the Hell they are talking about.

 

[not2rich]

So you discount what WHO says?




This is bizarre. Why do you think I linked the WHO source?

Is it a conspiracy or something? LOL

It's not a conspiracy. The right wing is obviously trying to make the WHO the boogeyman to protect Trump and the GOP. It's not complicated.

So I'll ask you: Do you believe asymptomatic people can't infect other people with the virus, based on the WHO link? Come on now, tell the truth.

 

[JimEverett]

It's not a conspiracy. The right wing is obviously trying to make the WHO the boogeyman to protect Trump and the GOP. It's not complicated.

Then take that issue up somewhere else. I have never made that argument and am not making it here.
In other words - quit painting with such a broad brush

So I'll ask you: Do you believe asymptomatic people can't infect other people with the virus, based on the WHO link? Come on now, tell the truth.

I believe it is likely what WHO says is true - that the possibility of being infected by someone who is asymptomatic is very low.
Are you suggesting we discount what WHO says about transmission?

 

[SystemShock]

If things go somewhat well, he'll be there to take credit of course.

... and don't forget Mike Pence. For a man who's so against homosexuality, he surely rims Trump every time he gets the chance.

 

[not2rich]

Then take that issue up somewhere else. I have never made that argument and am not making it here.
In other words - quit painting with such a broad brush


I believe it is likely what WHO says is true - that the possibility of being infected by someone who is asymptomatic is very low.
Are you suggesting we discount what WHO says about transmission?

If what you say the WHO says about transmission is true, and you believe they are "likely" correct, how is the virus spreading as quickly as it seems to be?

 

[Lapaz]

What was the point? It seemed to me your point was that the US testing was the worst in the world - given that that is what you wrote. I mean I guess we can dismiss with semantics and whenever we write something that has some particular meaning just claim to interpret it that way is preferring the semantics.

But okay, lets drop it.

Why are we not outperfoming who? Everyone? We are outperforming most. I would imagine that part of the reason we are not outperforming Italy and Spain is due to those countries having been dealing with a large outbreak for a longer period of time. Numbers from where our outbreak is centered - NY - show far superior testing than those countries as a whole - but obviously that is not a true 1-to-1 comparison. But it does go to show more testing where outbreaks are strong.

I am not sure why Germany is outperforming us. Do you have any thoughts?

We're definitely not outperforming most. We're closer to among the worst, but we are not the worst. The stat I look for is close to the positivity rate. I look for the number of cases/number of tests performed. That's not exactly positivity, because some people take the test multiple times. Here is a sampling of that ratio:

France 137/463 = 0.295
UK 108/438 = 0.25
Iran 79/319 = 0.25
US is 709/3542 = 0.2
Spain is 190/930 = 0.20
Sweden 13/74 =0.176
Mexico 6/40 = 0.15
Turkey 78/558 = 0.14
Italy is 172/1244 = 0.138
Romania 8/85 = 0.09
Germany 141/1728 = 0.08
Denmark 7/87 = 0.08
Norway 7/136 = 0.05
S. Korea 10/546 = 0.02
Israel 12/187 = 0.06
Japan 9/100 = 0.09
Portugal 19/221 = 0.085
Austria 14/169 = 0.082
India 14/335 = 0.04
Australia 6/391 = 0.015
Switzerland 27/206 = 0.13
Singapore 5/94 = 0.053
UAE 6/767 = 0.008

We don't necessarily have to be the best. It's nearly impossible to beat the UAE, but we need to test at least twice as much as we've been testing. Ultimately we need be able to test and contact trace to isolate carriers that will continue to spread the virus. With the amount of money that we spend on healthcare, which is multiples of any other country in the world, we actually should be no worse than in the top 5 in tests in the world. It is a travesty and a failure of epic proportions.

 

[samiam5211]

I am sure it is possible but WHO says the risk is very low. Not to say they are gospel or anything, but it seems weird to be so sure they are wrong.

Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19)

WHO is continuously monitoring and responding to this outbreak. This Q&A will be updated as more is known about COVID-19, how it spreads and how it is affecting people worldwide. For more information, check back regularly on WHO’s coronavirus pages...

www.who.int

.

Dr Fauci and has said several times that asymptomatic people spread the virus. I don’t need to cite a source, because it should be common knowledge at this point that asymptomatic people spread the virus.

I can’t believe that you don’t know asymptomatic people can spread the virus.

You haven’t really been paying attention.

 

[MT15]

I am sure it is possible but WHO says the risk is very low. Not to say they are gospel or anything, but it seems weird to be so sure they are wrong.

Q&A on coronaviruses (COVID-19)

WHO is continuously monitoring and responding to this outbreak. This Q&A will be updated as more is known about COVID-19, how it spreads and how it is affecting people worldwide. For more information, check back regularly on WHO’s coronavirus pages...

www.who.int

.

you have pretty much cherry picked a single sentence. The rest of the answer makes it clear that people are contagious who have very mild symptoms, so mild that they don’t really feel ill:

“However, many people with COVID-19 experience only mild symptoms. This is particularly true at the early stages of the disease. It is therefore possible to catch COVID-19 from someone who has, for example, just a mild cough and does not feel ill. WHO is assessing ongoing research on the period of transmission of COVID-19 and will continue to share updated findings.“

So you are splitting a very fine hair.

Back to testing, which is the actual topic at hand in this thread: I would like to know why you think our testing has been adequate. Why do you think people who aren’t symptomatic should NOT be tested? You have indicated you feel this way, can you defend these positions?

Why do you think we are having an outbreak that more resembles, say, Italy, rather than Germany or South Korea, or really any number of other countries who have managed this well?