COVID-19 (Con’t 2)

[cmd612]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

People in close quarters with infected people for long periods of time, or people in close quarters in general, like in New York City may be more likely to get a higher dose.

Just in case anyone takes this as a suggestion that smaller towns and rural areas aren't in danger, I'd like to point out what's happening in Dougherty County, Georgia (pop. 90k):

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/u...y-georgia.html

(That article is a few days old. As of yesterday, Dougherty Co. had 607 confirmed cases and 30 deaths: https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report . Their main hospital system also seems to have a big backlog of unprocessed tests
(As of yesterday: Total Positive Results – 837; Total Negative Results – 1,324; Total Patients Awaiting Test Results – 1,233) (https://www.phoebehealth.com/media-c...e-media-center ).

[tbeltrans]

[robj144]

So far, China is the only country that has controlled Covid. (If we believe their numbers.) Now, Italy, finally, looks like it's beginning to control it:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

"The target of bringing down the reproductive number (R0) to 1 has been reached. Now the goal is to bring it below 1. Earlier in the epidemic, it was as high as 3. This value represents the average number of people to which a single infected person will transmit the virus. An epidemic with a reproductive number below 1 will gradually disappear"

It took Italy about a month to do this with very strict lockdowns in place. Hopefully, the rest of the world follows a similar trajectory. In the US, we could perhaps get the R0 to 1 in maybe 3 to 6 weeks... hopefully.

[AmericanEagle]

Originally Posted by robj144

So far, China is the only country that has controlled Covid. (If we believe their numbers.)

I personally do Not believe their numbers.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by cmd612

Just in case anyone takes this as a suggestion that smaller towns and rural areas aren't in danger, I'd like to point out what's happening in Dougherty County, Georgia (pop. 90k):

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/30/u...y-georgia.html

(That article is a few days old. As of yesterday, Dougherty Co. had 607 confirmed cases and 30 deaths: https://dph.georgia.gov/covid-19-daily-status-report . Their main hospital system also seems to have a big backlog of unprocessed tests
(As of yesterday: Total Positive Results – 837; Total Negative Results – 1,324; Total Patients Awaiting Test Results – 1,233) (https://www.phoebehealth.com/media-c...e-media-center ).

Yep. A "super-spreading event" can happen anywhere lots of people get together in close proximity. (Which is every day in places like NYC.)

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by AmericanEagle

I personally do Not believe their numbers.

Agreed, and I don't believe anybody that believes China's numbers.

[MChild62]

Originally Posted by Joe Beamish

Agreed, and I don't believe anybody that believes China's numbers.

Since no country has tested 100% of its population or even close, all numbers are inaccurate, and it's just a question of degree. The UK and France seem far from representing their real number of infections right now, as their testing is so low. And given the difficulty friends in the US have in getting tested even when they present symptoms, I suspect the accuracy there is even less than UK and France.

As for China, the Wuhan numbers seem reliable, within their limitations. It was known that they had a bottleneck of 3,000 tests per day, and their positive results were close to that max every day. So very few negatives. And to overcome this bottleneck, they adopted diagnostic testing via chest x-rays, accepting a number with false positives. That's not a way to keep the number artificially low.

But I don't think anyone can know about the rest of China, especially all the rural areas. Just too many people in too many places.

[HodgdonExtreme]

Originally Posted by MChild62

And given the difficulty friends in the US have in getting tested even when they present symptoms, I suspect the accuracy there is even less than UK and France.

USA has conducted 1.7 million tests, which is very nearly double the next-highest country in the world (Germany, which currently sits at 900k).

[Peter Wilcox]

So Germany has tested 1% of its population and the US 0.5%. Not great numbers in either case, especially since there is not a 1:1 ratio of tests to people tested.

[HodgdonExtreme]

Originally Posted by Peter Wilcox

So Germany has tested 1% of its population and the US 0.5%. Not great numbers in either case, especially since there is not a 1:1 ratio of tests to people tested.

It takes time to produce, use and analyze the tests. It just doesn't happen instantaneously the way we all wish it could.

Iceland is winning the tests-per-million "contest" at 65k/million. However, thats a relatively easy thing to do when your population is only 365k. They have conducted 24k total tests, which is less than 1.5% as many as USA.

[Joe Beamish]

Originally Posted by MChild62

Since no country has tested 100% of its population or even close, all numbers are inaccurate, and it's just a question of degree. The UK and France seem far from representing their real number of infections right now, as their testing is so low. And given the difficulty friends in the US have in getting tested even when they present symptoms, I suspect the accuracy there is even less than UK and France.

As for China, the Wuhan numbers seem reliable, within their limitations. It was known that they had a bottleneck of 3,000 tests per day, and their positive results were close to that max every day. So very few negatives. And to overcome this bottleneck, they adopted diagnostic testing via chest x-rays, accepting a number with false positives. That's not a way to keep the number artificially low.

But I don't think anyone can know about the rest of China, especially all the rural areas. Just too many people in too many places.

Plus the hiding the virus to begin with, and lying since.

[HodgdonExtreme]

^unsure what point you're attempting make

*My* point is that I've been reading lots and lots of complaints that USA isn't working on the problem; and in particular - is not testing...

...which is patently false, considering the shear number of tests being performed in USA. (1.7M while I write this)

Clearly, we'd all like there to be more. I truly wish I could wave a magic wand and have all 7.5B Human Beings on Earth tested for both the virus - as well as the antibodies for it. Incidentally, I suspect by the time we're done with this, each of us will have been tested many times over.

Unfortunately, even on the "small" scale of "only" 330M Americans - that's gonna take some time.

[Peter Wilcox]

Originally Posted by HodgdonExtreme

^unsure what point you're attempting make
.

My point, of course, although it takes time to get tests up and running, is that there are tests that are available internationally, but they seem to be hitting a stumbling block here in the US. It could be that it's just the FDA wanting to be sure that the tests are as accurate as possible regarding sensitivity and specificity, or that there is some kind of profit oriented hanky-panky going on, and the public is being fed a load of baloney. Whoever gets approved for these stands to make a real bundle.

Tests that need a blood draw and run in a lab aren't going to make a dent for quite a while. We need 15 minute point-of-care finger stick tests, both for the virus and for antibodies, which are available, that can be done in a clinic or doctor's office, that can be reported to the CDC right away, and give immediate feedback to the clinician and the individual patient, so a treatment plan can be made going forward, whether it be negative test, quarantine, watchful waiting, hospitalization, or pharmacologic intervention if such will have been found in the future.

Oh, and this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...st-diagnostics

[MChild62]

Originally Posted by Peter Wilcox

So Germany has tested 1% of its population and the US 0.5%. Not great numbers in either case, especially since there is not a 1:1 ratio of tests to people tested.

Tests administered do not equal people tested, so % of population will be lower.

As I mentioned in another thread on Italy, many or most people are tested three or more times. The first to determine if you are positive, another to confirm the positive result, and at least one more later to determine if you are free of the virus. Many people are tested more than times.

Even within the same country, the number of tests per population will vary. Look at the data in the recent charts of regional data I posted under the Italy numbers thread: Lombardy's tests are 3x the number of positive cases. Veneto's have been 10-12x. Guess which one has kept its curve manageable?

From what I have heard from friends in southern California and upstate New York (and what many friends on AGF have written here), getting a test in parts of the US is very difficult even when you present serious symptoms, ie, similar to the Lombardy region.

[Peter Wilcox]

Originally Posted by MChild62

Tests administered do not equal people tested, so % of population will be lower.

Exactly. Additionally, there seem to be a huge number of tests administered that still have pending results days later, at least here in California (see the link in my post above.)

"Why is California still waiting for nearly 60,000 coronavirus test results?"