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?

 

[dtc]

It's no secret that we lost testing time on the front end due to a SNAFU with the first CDC test. But currently, tests are widely available at least in my area.

Is there a specific article that you read that has you so riled up? I don't even know how many fewer we tested this week compared to last.

Your insistence that we should be outpacing the rest of the world by a significant margin seems odd.

Do you not think we ought to be better at this than others? I mean don't we have the greatest medical minds money can buy? Don't we lead the world in research? Aren't we the home of the greatest research institutes on the planet?

I know there was a problem with the CDC tests, but I don't know what it was. It hasn't been really public so I'm not aware, but hoped you might be. Or Jim or whoever. What was that problem? Why didn't we use the other tests we could have used?

Dr Brix said 30% fewer last week and that's insane. Why?

Am I just stupid to think that we as the greatest nation on the planet ought to be ramped up and testing a million people per day?

Hell, Chick Fil A is killing it with drive thru chicken sandwiches and we can't even sustain a drive thru testing place. Why?

 

[JimEverett]

It seems to me that if there was major problem with testing, as in we were seeing significant areas of the country have inadequate numbers of tests that some area would be blowing up with cases and deaths. Is there a reason to believe that it happening?
I guess the fear would be that somewhere will blow-up and then its too late?

I am not going to go get tested because I don't have any symptoms. And I would suspect that describes most people. Now, I would be a little more likely to go get tested if I was in an area with a heavy outbreak - and it appears that is what is happening.

 

[Beach Friends]

Do you not think we ought to be better at this than others? I mean don't we have the greatest medical minds money can buy? Don't we lead the world in research? Aren't we the home of the greatest research institutes on the planet?

I know there was a problem with the CDC tests, but I don't know what it was. It hasn't been really public so I'm not aware, but hoped you might be. Or Jim or whoever. What was that problem? Why didn't we use the other tests we could have used?

Dr Brix said 30% fewer last week and that's insane. Why?

Am I just stupid to think that we as the greatest nation on the planet ought to be ramped up and testing a million people per day?

Hell, Chick Fil A is killing it with drive thru chicken sandwiches and we can't even sustain a drive thru testing place. Why?

I know that the CDC decided we would develop our own test (which we have done in the past), but there was a problem with one of the "ingredients."

It's anecdotal, but people who I know both in the local medical community and on the receiving end of the tests have indicated that there is no longer a problem here either getting tests or results.

All of the people I know who have been tested came back negative, but that's probably meaningless.

What I am looking forward to is the widespread availability of antibody tests - I just hope that we can get to one that is reliable for this particular corona virus as opposed to showing up positive for any corona virus.

 

[dtc]

I know that the CDC decided we would develop our own test (which we have done in the past), but there was a problem with one of the "ingredients."

It's anecdotal, but people who I know both in the local medical community and on the receiving end of the tests have indicated that there is no longer a problem here either getting tests or results.

All of the people I know who have been tested came back negative, but that's probably meaningless.

What I am looking forward to is the widespread availability of antibody tests - I just hope that we can get to one that is reliable for this particular corona virus as opposed to showing up positive for any corona virus.

A couple of my doctor friends report that very, very little testing is being done. None of them are in ER or ICU areas so I don't know how accurate, but they still say they're using MRIs to confirm the diagnosis rather than tests. I know very few people here who've gotten them and it just makes no sense.

My kid is not going back to school until there have been a high proportion of people tested. I know that the whole time this has been going on - back to when the first shortage of testing was noted a month ago, I've assumed that the cavalry was going to show up and we'd be testing like crazy in a matter of days.

I think testing is key to getting the nation back to work and I'm being patient, but my patience with the lack of testing has run out. And, now I want to know why.

 

[JimEverett]

A couple of my doctor friends report that very, very little testing is being done. None of them are in ER or ICU areas so I don't know how accurate, but they still say they're using MRIs to confirm the diagnosis rather than tests. I know very few people here who've gotten them and it just makes no sense.

My kid is not going back to school until there have been a high proportion of people tested. I know that, but the whole time this has been going on - back to when the first shortage of testing was noted a month ago, I've assumed that the cavalry was going to show up and we'd be testing like crazy in a matter of days.

I think testing is key to getting the nation back to work and I'm being patient, but my patience with the lack of testing has run out. And, now I want to know why.

I am not disagreeing with you, but I also don't understand. Do you think everyone should be tested right now? I just do not see a need to be tested unless you are showing symptoms. Maybe I am missing something here.

 

[dtc]

I am not disagreeing with you, but I also don't understand. Do you think everyone should be tested right now? I just do not see a need to be tested unless you are showing symptoms. Maybe I am missing something here.

Well, in an ideal world we would test every American right now, but that's unrealistic. Still, the transmission rate is too high to ignore the likelihood of asymptomatic people spreading this disease and in the context of reopening the economy I think it's stupid.

Let me put it this way, I want to reopen the economy as quickly as possible, but I will not support it until sufficient numbers have been tested. We are currently nowhere near that number.

Hell, where we are we are very close to NOLA which is a known hotspot. This is a place where when restrictions are relaxed, people from NOLA are going to come. Same with NY and NJ. We receive tourists from around the world during spring and summer. We also have a mid sized college and a Navy Base reportedly with 800 positive sailors onboard.

If we open up and some of those visitors are infected we will start the whole thing over only not in NYC where they can almost keep up, but in a place like Destin where there aren't a dozen ventilators or PCB where Hurricane Michael has already devastated the area.

Testing is key to me feeling it's time to safely begin to relax.

I assume you are smart enough to agree so my interest runs from why are we not all collectively going nuts that we are not testing and actually testing less and why aren't we improving in the one area that's paramount to opening.

 

[JimEverett]

Well, in an ideal world we would test every American right now, but that's unrealistic. Still, the transmission rate is too high to ignore the likelihood of asymptomatic people spreading this disease and in the context of reopening the economy I think it's stupid.

Let me put it this way, I want to reopen the economy as quickly as possible, but I will not support it until sufficient numbers have been tested. We are currently nowhere near that number.

Hell, where we are we are very close to NOLA which is a known hotspot. This is a place where when restrictions are relaxed, people from NOLA are going to come. Same with NY and NJ. We receive tourists from around the world during spring and summer. We also have a mid sized college and a Navy Base reportedly with 800 positive sailors onboard.

If we open up and some of those visitors are infected we will start the whole thing over only not in NYC where they can almost keep up, but in a place like Destin where there aren't a dozen ventilators or PCB where Hurricane Michael has already devastated the area.

Testing is key to me feeling it's time to safely begin to relax.

I assume you are smart enough to agree so my interest runs from why are we not all collectively going nuts that we are not testing and actually testing less and why aren't we improving in the one area that's paramount to opening.

I think it would be good to get widespread antibody testing done. In fact, I think that would be more beneficial right now than testing if someone has the virus. But, more testing certainly isn't bad, so I don't disagree with what you are saying.

 

[RobF]

I am not sure why you think France, UK, Netherlands are not anywhere. In addition - our testing is basically the same as Korea.

In terms of testing, the UK is struggling to get anywhere. Over the last month where we've supposedly been working towards mass testing, we've only managed to double the amount of daily tests. We do actually have more testing capacity than that now, but it's dubiously not being used. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/16/swab-tester-uk-germany-south-korea

Saying the US is better than the UK is like the Panthers saying they're better than the Dolphins.

As for comparisons with South Korea, they don't need to test as much, because they've got a test, trace, and isolate strategy actually working. When you've got over 2,000 cases per 1M population, you need to be doing a lot more testing than when you've got around a tenth of that rate.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I am not disagreeing with you, but I also don't understand. Do you think everyone should be tested right now? I just do not see a need to be tested unless you are showing symptoms. Maybe I am missing something here.

If we can not identify and trace people that are currently low or asymptomatic you are essentially playing a game of Russian roulette in terms of re-opening the country.

Especially when it appears that as testing has increased, the percentage rate of positive cases has not dropped, something you should expect to see if the virus is not well embedded in a population still.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I was responding to this:



I am not sure why you think France, UK, Netherlands are not anywhere. In addition - our testing is basically the same as Korea.

If your point was that you think the USA should be 10,000 times better than anywhere else you should have said that instead of inaccurately saying we are not doing better than anywhere.

South Korea had a 2% positive test rate. Meaning that out of every 100 people tested, 2% at their peak had it.

America has a 20% rate, and as tests are allowing Us to incorporate less symptomatic people that rate has not dropped at all...That is concerning.

Meaning ours is far more widespread and therefore in order to contain we need better than South Korea testing to have an equally effective ID and trace system(A system we don’t even currently have) to get it under control and get America to the place they are at.

 

[Zombiewoof]

I think it would be good to get widespread antibody testing done. In fact, I think that would be more beneficial right now than testing if someone has the virus. But, more testing certainly isn't bad, so I don't disagree with what you are saying.

I don't know that it would be necessary for everyone, but I would like my family to be tested before we start hanging around my 83-year-old mother.

 

[samiam5211]

I am not disagreeing with you, but I also don't understand. Do you think everyone should be tested right now? I just do not see a need to be tested unless you are showing symptoms. Maybe I am missing something here.

Everyone should be tested on a regular basis if we are going to open back up.

People are infectious long before they show symptoms.

By the time someone is sick, the people they infected are already out infecting other people.

 

[dtc]

Everyone should be tested on a regular basis if we are going to open back up.

People are infectious long before they show symptoms.

By the time someone is sick, the people they infected are already out infecting other people.

For sure.

I would be there are 10s of thousands who've had it, spread it and never even realized it.

Those people could stand to know and so could we. The people that would not know in the future and spread it are the danger we face and with proper testing we can do it.

Somehow we are not testing.

Of all the things we've investigated over the past 20 years, this is the one I want.

 

[Beach Friends]

Well, in an ideal world we would test every American right now, but that's unrealistic. Still, the transmission rate is too high to ignore the likelihood of asymptomatic people spreading this disease and in the context of reopening the economy I think it's stupid.

Let me put it this way, I want to reopen the economy as quickly as possible, but I will not support it until sufficient numbers have been tested. We are currently nowhere near that number.

Hell, where we are we are very close to NOLA which is a known hotspot. This is a place where when restrictions are relaxed, people from NOLA are going to come. Same with NY and NJ. We receive tourists from around the world during spring and summer. We also have a mid sized college and a Navy Base reportedly with 800 positive sailors onboard.

If we open up and some of those visitors are infected we will start the whole thing over only not in NYC where they can almost keep up, but in a place like Destin where there aren't a dozen ventilators or PCB where Hurricane Michael has already devastated the area.

Testing is key to me feeling it's time to safely begin to relax.

I assume you are smart enough to agree so my interest runs from why are we not all collectively going nuts that we are not testing and actually testing less and why aren't we improving in the one area that's paramount to opening.

I agree with your underlying concerns, and in particular your concern about having people from hotspots flocking to your community as soon as it opens. It only makes sense that people in a place like NOLA would love to get away to a place with beaches. And the truth is, while many people are hurting financially, there are others who have more money than usual and it is burning a hole in their pockets.

As far as kids and schools, I don't blame you there either. We are so late in the school year I just think the prudent thing would be to throw in the towel for this year.

I just don't think we have the capacity to tell everyone to go get tested regardless of symptoms. It would overload the system and those who are most in need of being diagnosed would get lost in the mix.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think in an ideal world, we'd have enough testing capacity to test everyone in America twice a week. If we did that we could live a fairly normal life until a vaccine is available.

That's not realistic, of course, but we can do a better job of doing lots of testing in areas that are considered hotspots. Test symptomatic people first, and then test everyone who has direct contact with someone who tests positive (even if they are asymptomatic).

The more testing we do, the better able we'll be able to selectively lockdown certain areas while letting everyone else go about their life.

Absent a vaccine, or treatment, testing is our best chance at returning to a somewhat normal life. So I'd like to know if we are approaching that capacity, and if not, how long will it take to get there.

At some point, we'll need to do an analysis of the US response to this -- from the federal government down to the state and local levels. It's going to be a political shirt show, but we really need to learn if we can do this better in the future.

 

[MT15]

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.

 

[Beach Friends]

I think in an ideal world, we'd have enough testing capacity to test everyone in America twice a week. If we did that we could live a fairly normal life until a vaccine is available.

That's not realistic, of course, but we can do a better job of doing lots of testing in areas that are considered hotspots. Test symptomatic people first, and then test everyone who has direct contact with someone who tests positive (even if they are asymptomatic).

The more testing we do, the better able we'll be able to selectively lockdown certain areas while letting everyone else go about their life.

Absent a vaccine, or treatment, testing is our best chance at returning to a somewhat normal life. So I'd like to know if we are approaching that capacity, and if not, how long will it take to get there.

At some point, we'll need to do an analysis of the US response to this -- from the federal government down to the state and local levels. It's going to be a political shirt show, but we really need to learn if we can do this better in the future.

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.

 

[not2rich]

"Non-sequitur"? Did you really forget that you are the one who bought up the question of per capita numbers v. raw numbers???????

I didn't forget, but my raising raw capita numbers vs. raw numbers was simply to clarify the numbers you raised - which I assumed to be per capita numbers. But my comment was a response to you not addressing the point of my post. Maybe not technically a non-sequitur, but I'm sure you can figure out the right label for that.

As far as your second question, who knows if it is "adequate" - the criticism has been we are not testing enough. Yet we are testing better than most nations and some other criticism pops up.

Is a 20% positive rate abnormal? Doesn't look to be when compared to the top 8 western European nations' figures - we are right in the middle.



France 32%
Belgium 26%
UK 24.8%
Spain 20.2%
US 19.9%
Netherlands 19.7%
Italy 13.9%
Switzerland 13.1%
Germany 8%

I'm not sure where you got your stats from, but unless you believe 1 in 5 Americans have been infected with the virus, that statistic tells us we are undertesting. Period. And comparisons with other countries doesn't make that less true. It just means other countries are undertesting too. And if 1 in 5 Americans HAVE been been infected, then we as a country have done a spectacularly bad job of containing and mitigating this virus.