PlagueWatch 2020-23 - Coronavirus

[rsvman]

... We should be testing everyone reporting flu like symptoms. ....

It doesn't work that way.

As it turns out, right now in our area (southeastern Virginia) there are still WAY more people suffering from respiratory illness caused by other pathogens than there are those suffering from infection with the novel coronavirus. We have access to only limited numbers of test kits for SARS-CoV-2.

The approach we are taking, therefore, is to test sick people with a multiplex respiratory pathogen PCR and see if we can prove that they have flu, or paraflu, or adenovirus, or any of the 4 or 5 other pathogens that are currently circulating. If that test comes back negative, we then test for SARS-CoV-2.

This is the most logical approach. It allows us to not waste tests on people who have something else, which allows us to save the test kits for those with the highest likelihood of actually having the new virus. If we were to take the approach you advocated, all that would happen (at least for now) is that we would run out of kits testing a bunch of people who have other pathogens and then not have them available to test people two or three weeks from now, when perhaps the risk ratio will have flipped.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

It doesn't work that way.

As it turns out, right now in our area (southeastern Virginia) there are still WAY more people suffering from respiratory illness caused by other pathogens than there are those suffering from infection with the novel coronavirus. We have access to only limited numbers of test kits for SARS-CoV-2.

The approach we are taking, therefore, is to test sick people with a multiplex respiratory pathogen PCR and see if we can prove that they have flu, or paraflu, or adenovirus, or any of the 4 or 5 other pathogens that are currently circulating. If that test comes back negative, we then test for SARS-CoV-2.

This is the most logical approach. It allows us to not waste tests on people who have something else, which allows us to save the test kits for those with the highest likelihood of actually having the new virus. If we were to take the approach you advocated, all that would happen (at least for now) is that we would run out of kits testing a bunch of people who have other pathogens and then not have them available to test people two or three weeks from now, when perhaps the risk ratio will have flipped.

Is there any indication as to when more test kits are going to be available? Washington says there are millions but that doesn’t seem to be the case at all.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Is there any indication as to when more test kits are going to be available? Washington says there are millions but that doesn’t seem to be the case at all.

My limited understanding is that there definitely are not millions available at the moment.

[PackMan97]

We have access to only limited numbers of test kits for SARS-CoV-2.

The approach we are taking, therefore, is to test sick people with a multiplex respiratory pathogen PCR and see if we can prove that they have flu, or paraflu, or adenovirus, or any of the 4 or 5 other pathogens that are currently circulating. If that test comes back negative, we then test for SARS-CoV-2.

This is the most logical approach. It allows us to not waste tests on people who have something else, which allows us to save the test kits for those with the highest likelihood of actually having the new virus. If we were to take the approach you advocated, all that would happen (at least for now) is that we would run out of kits testing a bunch of people who have other pathogens and then not have them available to test people two or three weeks from now, when perhaps the risk ratio will have flipped.

I'm sorry, I wasn't talking about what we are able to do, but what we should aspire to do.

I understand rationing tests due to a shortage of supply.

[Dr. Rosenrosen]

My limited understanding is that there definitely are not millions available at the moment.

Yes that clearly seems to be the case. I was wondering if rsvman had insight as to when there might be more on the way based on communications from... the ether, I guess?

[rsvman]

Yes that clearly seems to be the case. I was wondering if rsvman had insight as to when there might be more on the way based on communications from... the ether, I guess?

[insert shrug emoji here]

[scottdude8]

EXACTLY. If we are worried about 50-100 people playing in empty gym then what about all congregations like church services, where there are easily more people than that? They are probably safer playing the tournament and I think this has gone too far

NUMBERS - say wparents maybe 300 people at an NCAA game? Church or political rally could have hundreds to thousands of people but no one is talking about that

That isn't entirely accurate. Many areas that are most affected by COVID-19 are banning things like church services and political rallies. Most experts in the field are suggesting this happen more generally in order to "flatten the curve".

I don't want to go out of the realm of the topic here, but we need to recognize that there's a bit of a false narrative being presented in some areas that is making its way onto this board. "Social distancing" measures are NOT about "preventing the spread" of the illness. They ARE about "flattening the curve" so that we don't see an exponential spike of cases that could overwhelm our medical system, which has the potential to lead to negative outcomes that otherwise could've been prevented. If you are further interested, this article does a great job of explaining it and is as close to a "must read" as you're going to find on the topic.

Let's make sure we're reporting facts and trusting the experts.

[left_hook_lacey]

Two cases in Forsyth county, awful close to Greensboro and the first confirmed cases outside the triangle. I wonder if this will force the ACC's hand if cases in/around Greensboro keep popping up.

https://www.journalnow.com/news/loca...A5GYkfT4S7e0#1

27 tests are awaiting results, it's unclear where those patients were located.

[MChambers]

That isn't entirely accurate. Many areas that are most affected by COVID-19 are banning things like church services and political rallies. Most experts in the field are suggesting this happen more generally in order to "flatten the curve".

I don't want to go out of the realm of the topic here, but we need to recognize that there's a bit of a false narrative being presented in some areas that is making its way onto this board. "Social distancing" measures are NOT about "preventing the spread" of the illness. They ARE about "flattening the curve" so that we don't see an exponential spike of cases that could overwhelm our medical system, which has the potential to lead to negative outcomes that otherwise could've been prevented. If you are further interested, this article does a great job of explaining it and is as close to a "must read" as you're going to find on the topic.

Let's make sure we're reporting facts and trusting the experts.

It’s a very good article, but the author is just a smart person and not an epidemiologist or similar expert.

[scottdude8]

It’s a very good article, but the author is just a smart person and not an epidemiologist or similar expert.

True. But he does "cite" the relevant experts. As an academic myself, sometimes the "synthesis" of the results/insights of experts into a more digestible format is extremely valuable and important. I'd liken this article to what's commonly seen as a "review" article in academia. Would it be better if an actual epidemiologist wrote this? Of course. But I can tell you that the necessary skillsets for top-tier scientific research and top-tier scientific communication don't always overlap, haha.

[ChemGod]

I would guess that it's hard to predict.

Didn't RSV man or someone up thread say that we still don't have enough tests to go around?

Yes.

[BD80]

... Many areas that are most affected by COVID-19 are banning things like church services and political rallies. ...

The juxtaposing seems particularly apropos; political gatherings have become much like church services …

It’s a very good article, but the author is just a smart person and not an epidemiologist or similar expert.

Why do I sense an insult?



To prove I'm not smart, can someone explain to me why this all has led to a "run" on toilet paper?

[scottdude8]

To prove I'm not smart, can someone explain to me why this all has led to a "run" on toilet paper?

From everything I've seen that's just a psychological response to any sort of panic, irregardless of the specifics of this virus... so in reality no one understands that aspect of things. So we're all equally dumb in that regard

[PackMan97]

To prove I'm not smart, can someone explain to me why this all has led to a "run" on toilet paper?

I have two theories:

1) Folks have already used up their UNC diplomas and need something else.

2) Folks are afraid of being quarantined for a month and running out of toilet paper. We have 192 rolls here at the PackMan97 homestead. We ready!

[Acymetric]

I have two theories:

1) Folks have already used up their UNC diplomas and need something else.

2) Folks are afraid of being quarantined for a month and running out of toilet paper. We have 192 rolls here at the PackMan97 homestead. We ready!

192 rolls? That's like 2-4 years worth, not a month! No wonder the stores are out, PM97 has them all!

[ChemGod]

It’s a very good article, but the author is just a smart person and not an epidemiologist or similar expert.

The author does present some known and verified information and a smattering of epi knowledge, but there are some pretty big gaps in his knowledge. The precision of which he presents his models in the face of such huge uncertainty of the data is just show business.

I’d suggest reading it with a large grain of salt.

[Phredd3]

I’d suggest reading it with a large grain of salt.

That said, his central point about action now versus action tomorrow is not wrong. There's a big difference between getting ahead of the curve and not.

[mph]

Donovan Mitchell tested positive and Jazz players are reporting that Golbert was touching players and their belongings.

Jazz players are privately saying that Gobert showed a cavalier attitude toward the virus with his teammates in the locker room, touching them and their belongings.

Folks, you aren’t just making decisions that risk your life, you’re risking the lives of those around you. Please consider them in your decision making process.

[flyingdutchdevil]

Donovan Mitchell tested positive and Jazz players are reporting that Golbert was touching players and their belongings.



Folks, you aren’t just making decisions that risk your life, you’re risking the lives of those around you. Please consider them in your decision making process.

This. 100%. I'm not worried about what happens to me if I get COVID-19. I'm a relatively healthy mid-30 year old without a history of health or respiratory problems. But contacting the virus and spreading it, especially to those above 60? Holy crap. That's frightening.

[scottdude8]

Donovan Mitchell tested positive and Jazz players are reporting that Golbert was touching players and their belongings.



Folks, you aren’t just making decisions that risk your life, you’re risking the lives of those around you. Please consider them in your decision making process.

Seconded, thirded, and fourthed. YOU may not be at risk for serious complications of the virus, but someone you know, or someone who knows someone you know, might be.