OT: virus test shortage

zoocrewphoto wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:46 pm

palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:34 pm

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:54 am

True, knowing or not knowing will make little difference to most affected individuals,
especially in mild cases,

Identifying cases is not best used for trrearment, it's to limit *spread*. Identifying people who have it with a mild case or before symptoms present that are spreading it around.

This makes sense, but I wonder how useful it is for people who are not likely tp have been exposed.

We have no idea what that looks like.

The first person to die in north Texas lived in a care home, he hadn't been oversees, he hadn't been *anywhere*, he was infected somehow through community spread.

The latest thing I saw was that an estimated 10% of the virus spread is happening from people who have no outward symptoms!

zoocrewphoto wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:46 pm

The best I can do is check my temp.

And by that time, it's likely too late for those around you.

zoocrewphoto wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:46 pm

palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:34 pm

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:54 am

True, knowing or not knowing will make little difference to most affected individuals,
especially in mild cases,

Identifying cases is not best used for trrearment, it's to limit *spread*. Identifying people who have it with a mild case or before symptoms present that are spreading it around.

This makes sense, but I wonder how useful it is for people who are not likely tp have been exposed. People are panicking and want to get tested, but unless they go home afterward and have no contact with anybody or anything, they could easily get exposed the next day or the next day. We can't test everybody every day, and our status could easily change. I go back to work tomorrow after 3 weeks of vacation. I work in a grocery store. I could easily be exposed any day. But there is no way to check every day. The best I can do is check my temp.

And, this is the problem with "testing".
From my understanding you have to have two consecutive negative tests to be OK.
But, depending on your interactions with others, you may be "negative" one time but several weeks later, you may have acquired the virus.

Stay safe. We've "self quarantined" for nearly a month now. Going to have to venture out the first of next week though.


Den

.

palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 8:40 pm

zoocrewphoto wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:46 pm

palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:34 pm

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:54 am

True, knowing or not knowing will make little difference to most affected individuals,
especially in mild cases,

Identifying cases is not best used for trrearment, it's to limit *spread*. Identifying people who have it with a mild case or before symptoms present that are spreading it around.

This makes sense, but I wonder how useful it is for people who are not likely tp have been exposed.

We have no idea what that looks like.

The first person to die in north Texas lived in a care home, he hadn't been oversees, he hadn't been *anywhere*, he was infected somehow through community spread.

The latest thing I saw was that an estimated 10% of the virus spread is happening from people who have no outward symptoms!

zoocrewphoto wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 7:46 pm

The best I can do is check my temp.

And by that time, it's likely too late for those around you.

So what is the solution? Since your status can change every day, it won't be accurate unless you check every day. And everybody else checks every day. We don't have that capability. We don't have enough tests to test the people with symptoms. We can't have ideal, so how do make the best with what we do have? Waste the tests on people who are less likely to have it? test only those with symptoms? I really don't know the answer. But I don't think we should be counting on negative results when the person could be exposed and positive the very next day.

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:41 pm

palerider wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 1:34 pm

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:54 am

True, knowing or not knowing will make little difference to most affected individuals,
especially in mild cases,

Identifying cases is not best used for trrearment, it's to limit *spread*. Identifying people who have it with a mild case or before symptoms present that are spreading it around.

However, antibodies from early survivors helped save many ebola patients.

To your point: https://www.globalhealthnow.org/2020-03 ... -are-ready

palerider wrote: ↑

Sun Mar 22, 2020 12:00 am

To your point: https://www.globalhealthnow.org/2020-03 ... -are-ready

thanks very much for posting this! it's a bright spot in the night time.

chunkyfrog wrote: ↑

Sat Mar 21, 2020 10:54 am

True, knowing or not knowing will make little difference to most affected individuals,
especially in mild cases, but if we want effective treatment and a chance for a vaccine,
it could help to identify people who have/will have the antibodies.
This can only work when there are enough tests to find these subjects.
It is not about "you" and "me", but EVERYBODY.

To the point of knowing or not knowing:
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/society ... classified