All things political. Coronavirus Edition. (19 Viewers)

[Maxp]

I fear we are really going to be in a bad place due to the obvious cuts to the federal agencies that deal with infectious disease, but also the negative effect the Affordable Care act has had on non urban hospitals. Our front line defenses are ineffectual and our ability to treat the populous is probably at an all time low. Factor in the cost of healthcare and I can see our system crashing. What do you think about the politics of this virus?

 

[The moose]

The CDC budget thing isn't true, I don't think.

No

He tried to cut the crap out of it but Congress did not play along and funded them.

So yeah he tried to.

 

[bdb13]

No

He tried to cut the crap out of it but Congress did not play along and funded them.

So yeah he tried to.

I didn't say he didn't.

 

[MT15]

I’m going to screenshot highlights of this twitter thread, because I think it’s spot on about why our response has been so inadequate.

it’s a long thread, but well worth the read.

 

[MT15]

No

He tried to cut the crap out of it but Congress did not play along and funded them.

So yeah he tried to.

Not only that, but what he did cut, in 2018, was the entire WH Pandemic Response Team, like Rob said earlier. Let them all go and never replaced them. I think folks confuse that team with the CDC.

 

[Eeyore]

I live in a place with a massive community from China and know of no cases in that community, which speaks to the effectiveness of Trump's initial response. It is likely that every case in the US will be traced to a US citizen returning from travel carrying the virus.

How many people from the community have been tested?

I'd say that not testing people is a 100% effective method of guaranteeing that there 0 cases.

 

[superchuck500]

This is a real White House press release about the coronavirus response.

 

[Eeyore]

This is a real White House press release about the coronavirus response.

I don't know that I believe it. I did not see the phrase "Supreme Leader."

 

[Archies Ghost]

How many people from the community have been tested?

I'd say that not testing people is a 100% effective method of guaranteeing that there 0 cases.

Are you suggesting we should round up Chinese living in the United States for testing?

How much Chinese DNA triggers mandatory testing? Or do you just need to look Chinese?

Oral swab, blood or fecal matter testing?

Subjects who did not test positive using the oral swab or with blood testing have shown positive for the virus in fecal matter.

 

[efil4]

This is a real White House press release about the coronavirus response.

Sooooooooo...where are the speech writers? quarantine?

 

[superchuck500]

Subjects who did not test positive using the oral swab or with blood testing have shown positive for the virus in fecal matter.

Some analysis has shown that not to be the case:

Characterizing viral load
In a letter published in the same issue, researchers from the Beijing Center for Disease Prevention and Control describe patterns of viral load in clinical samples collected from 82 patients hospitalized with COVID-19.

The researchers collected serial throat swabs, sputum, urine, and stool samples from two hospitalized patients in Beijing and examined them using quantitative real-time polymerase chain reaction (qRT-PCR). Viral loads in the throat swabs and sputum peaked about 5 or 6 days after symptom onset, with sputum showing higher loads than throat samples. No viral RNA was identified in the urine or stool samples.

http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-pers...ges-asymptomatic-covid-19-viral-loads-patient (emphasis added)

 

[Eeyore]

Are you suggesting we should round up Chinese living in the United States for testing?

How much Chinese DNA triggers mandatory testing? Or do you just need to look Chinese?

Oral swab, blood or fecal matter testing?

Subjects who did not test positive using the oral swab or with blood testing have shown positive for the virus in fecal matter.

You said that you know of no cases in the community.

Of course you don't know of any cases. If they're not testing for it there won't be any known cases.

 

[Andrus]

Joe Okc and Saintamaniac. Keep it civil.

I shouldn't have to explain why I deleted your posts. We can't be calling one another liars, and we cannot use inflammatory terms and acronyms aimed at the opposition. All doing so does is incite flaming.

 

[Archies Ghost]

You said that you know of no cases in the community.

Of course you don't know of any cases. If they're not testing for it there won't be any known cases.

So your position is that covid 19 is so similar to other common viral infections in symptoms and mortality that it remains undetected without testing?

 

[Saintamaniac]

I live in a place with a massive community from China and know of no cases in that community.

Being from China and having recently returned from the area of China where the outbreak first started are different, no? There is a large population in NOLA East that is from Vietnam but they have been living here for decades. You example is not a good one here.

Are you suggesting we should round up Chinese living in the United States for testing?

I think anyone who has been to the area of China where the outbreak has started or from an area where infections have been reported, should be tested.

You said that you know of no cases in the community.

Of course you don't know of any cases. If they're not testing for it there won't be any known cases.

So your position is that covid 19 is so similar to other common viral infections in symptoms and mortality that it remains undetected without testing?

How does your question even begin to address the point that if people are not tested, that is a fool proof way of not knowing if there are any new cases of people infected with the virus? If people are not being tested then we have no way of knowing if they are infected with the virus. The symptoms of COVID-19 are similar to flu symptoms but the mortality rate is different. So yes, it can/will 100% go undetected without testing.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Being from China and having recently returned from the area of China where the outbreak first started are different, no? There is a large population in NOLA East that is from Vietnam but they have been living here for decades. You example is not a good one here.

I think anyone who has been to the area of China where the outbreak has started or from an area where infections have been reported, should be tested.


How does your question even begin to address the point that if people are not tested, that is a fool proof way of not knowing if there are any new cases of people infected with the virus? If people are not being tested then we have no way of knowing if they are infected with the virus. The symptoms of COVID-19 are similar to flu symptoms but the mortality rate is different. So yes, it can/will 100% go undetected without testing.

The Chinese community here is large and wealthy, with new arrivals daily and much travel back and forth.

If Covid 19 is only makes its presence known in testing, why do we care?

The flu killed an estimated 35,000 of all ages in the US last season with approximately 35,000,000 symptomatic patients.

I haven't seen anything that indicates this virus is going to get anywhere near that level of infection and the likely mortality rate is probably similar to the flu here.

It seems like calls for widespread testing are mostly just an attempt to find more confirmed cases and confirmed deaths for political points.

I am not opposed to testing for solid medical reasons.

 

[Maxp]

The Chinese community here is large and wealthy, with new arrivals daily and much travel back and forth.

If Covid 19 is only makes its presence known in testing, why do we care?

The flu killed an estimated 35,000 of all ages in the US last season with approximately 35,000,000 symptomatic patients.

I haven't seen anything that indicates this virus is going to get anywhere near that level of infection and the likely mortality rate is probably similar to the flu here.

It seems like calls for widespread testing are mostly just an attempt to find more confirmed cases and confirmed deaths for political points.

I am not opposed to testing for solid medical reasons.

The WHO said today that the world wide mortality rate is 3.4%. If 1% of Americans get coronavirus, you are looking at over 100,000 deaths. People like you won't be convinced this is a very big deal until citizens start falling out in the street.

If you haven't seen anything that makes you think this is more contagious than the flu, you have your eyes closed with blue blockers buried 3 ft under the sand.

 

[The moose]

This one is good.

Pence Visited School Where Student Is in Coronavirus Quarantine

A Florida student whose classmates shook hands last Friday with Vice President Mike Pence has been quarantined after his mother came into contact with a coronavirus patient.

www.bloomberg.com

 

[where yat brah]

The Chinese community here is large and wealthy, with new arrivals daily and much travel back and forth.

If Covid 19 is only makes its presence known in testing, why do we care?

The flu killed an estimated 35,000 of all ages in the US last season with approximately 35,000,000 symptomatic patients.

I haven't seen anything that indicates this virus is going to get anywhere near that level of infection and the likely mortality rate is probably similar to the flu here.

It seems like calls for widespread testing are mostly just an attempt to find more confirmed cases and confirmed deaths for political points.

I am not opposed to testing for solid medical reasons.

First post on MAP, but felt it necessary. This post is so filled with misinformation, I hope you are willing to be allowed to have unbiased fact-based (real world--not alternative fact world) information filter into your thought process.

Do you try to avoid getting the flu? Or, do you not take steps to avoid it? Do you get a flu shot? Do you try to keep a distance from someone who is coughing and congested?
Your proposed death rate in the example above is 0.1%. The death rate of COVID-19 is being thought to be between 2-3%. That's a VERY significant difference. Where are you seeing scientific fact/opinion to base those assertions? How would ER and family physicians around the country requesting test kits be construed as "political points?" If you're not opposed to testing for medical reasons then tens of thousands kits are needed by medical personnel who have been requesting them.