6 ms·

There aren't any meaningful criteria. The symptoms look exactly like those of the regular flu, they just have a worse distribution of outcomes which manifest lo

There aren't any meaningful criteria. The symptoms look exactly like those of the regular flu, they just have a worse distribution of outcomes which manifest long into the infection. Just like China, the rest of the world does not have the capacity to test anywhere close to every suspected case. This is also why even good-faith stats are guaranteed to be underestimates. There are no easy answers here, individuals should look after their own wellbeing.

deweller 7y ago
I think the criteria right now involves recent travel to China or being exposed to someone who was. > CDC initially declined because the patient, who had not recently traveled to countries with outbreaks or been in contact with someone with the virus, did not meet the testing criteria.
- missosoup 7y ago
  That's a poor heuristic which has already been contradicted by a number of cases outside of china aka local spread aka the criterion which transitions this from an epidemic to a pandemic.
  - creaghpatr 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure the criteria has since changed, the story was talking about a request from Feb 19.
    - nilsbunger 7y ago
      You would think so, but they haven’t yet! https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-criteria.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-crite...
gnulinux 7y ago
> individuals should look after their own wellbeing. I don't understand how I'm supposed to look after my wellbeing when I'm employed and need to go to work and need to be in close contact with hundreds of people. CDC should advise businesses and should advise everyone to WFH if they can. My boss didn't even hear about this at all, think about that for a second.
- missosoup 7y ago
  Don't rely on CDC. Don't rely on external parties. You are responsible for your health not your government. If you're in a high risk category (old, history of chronic cough, cardiovascular issues, etc) then you should consider self isolating even at the cost of your job if WFH is not an option. As China and Korea have demonstrated, this quickly becomes a problem much larger than the authorities are resourced to handle. At that point your health is in your hands and your hands only.
  - alttab 7y ago
    My company seems to be consistently behind the edge data with regards to policy. For instance, self isolation is still 14 days. This isn't enough. They are also restricting isolation and travel only to "affected areas of Italy" instead of all of Italy. It boggles my mind that people say "the risk is low" and "we don't know how to contain it or where these cases are coming from" in the same presser.
    - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      14 days is still probably enough. There are scattered reports of people staying asymptomatic for longer, but they're hard to confirm (maybe you weren't actually exposed at the start) and certainly very rare. The goal of self-isolation is to severely reduce transmission, not to make it 100% impossible. People say the risk is low because it's probably good on net if the cases are coming from everywhere; it would indicate that the visible clusters where people die a lot are anomalies, and most cases aren't that bad. The worst case scenario is that containment is impossible but it really hasn't spread widely yet.
jbay808 7y ago
Regarding individuals looking after their own wellbeing... It's very hard for a healthy person to make choices that will significantly increase the chances they stay healthy, short of a massive cost. It's much easier for a sick person to make choices that will reduce the number of people they infect. And it is easier still for society to adjust certain expectations and incentives to help sick people take those actions. For example by not requiring them to go to work(!), especially via public transportation (!!), and ensuring that this is not overly economically burdensome for them. An "individuals should look after their own wellbeing" attitude is a "healthy people are responsible for staying healthy" attitude. It suggests not creating any incentive for people who do fall ill to do anything to prevent the spread -- too late for me, I'm already sick, not much more I can do to look after my own wellbeing than taking the rush hour subway to the emergency room, I guess, and then go straight to work so that I can afford the treatment. When the mathematics work out such that preventative measures taken by sick people are 100x more impactful than preventative measures taken by healthy people for a given expense, why wouldn't we try to encourage those measures to reduce transmission?

deweller 7y ago

I think the criteria right now involves recent travel to China or being exposed to someone who was. > CDC initially declined because the patient, who had not recently traveled to countries with outbreaks or been in contact with someone with the virus, did not meet the testing criteria.

missosoup 7y ago
That's a poor heuristic which has already been contradicted by a number of cases outside of china aka local spread aka the criterion which transitions this from an epidemic to a pandemic.
- creaghpatr 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure the criteria has since changed, the story was talking about a request from Feb 19.
  - nilsbunger 7y ago
    You would think so, but they haven’t yet! https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-criteria.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-crite...

gnulinux 7y ago

> individuals should look after their own wellbeing. I don't understand how I'm supposed to look after my wellbeing when I'm employed and need to go to work and need to be in close contact with hundreds of people. CDC should advise businesses and should advise everyone to WFH if they can. My boss didn't even hear about this at all, think about that for a second.

missosoup 7y ago
Don't rely on CDC. Don't rely on external parties. You are responsible for your health not your government. If you're in a high risk category (old, history of chronic cough, cardiovascular issues, etc) then you should consider self isolating even at the cost of your job if WFH is not an option. As China and Korea have demonstrated, this quickly becomes a problem much larger than the authorities are resourced to handle. At that point your health is in your hands and your hands only.
- alttab 7y ago
  My company seems to be consistently behind the edge data with regards to policy. For instance, self isolation is still 14 days. This isn't enough. They are also restricting isolation and travel only to "affected areas of Italy" instead of all of Italy. It boggles my mind that people say "the risk is low" and "we don't know how to contain it or where these cases are coming from" in the same presser.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    14 days is still probably enough. There are scattered reports of people staying asymptomatic for longer, but they're hard to confirm (maybe you weren't actually exposed at the start) and certainly very rare. The goal of self-isolation is to severely reduce transmission, not to make it 100% impossible. People say the risk is low because it's probably good on net if the cases are coming from everywhere; it would indicate that the visible clusters where people die a lot are anomalies, and most cases aren't that bad. The worst case scenario is that containment is impossible but it really hasn't spread widely yet.

jbay808 7y ago

Regarding individuals looking after their own wellbeing... It's very hard for a healthy person to make choices that will significantly increase the chances they stay healthy, short of a massive cost. It's much easier for a sick person to make choices that will reduce the number of people they infect. And it is easier still for society to adjust certain expectations and incentives to help sick people take those actions. For example by not requiring them to go to work(!), especially via public transportation (!!), and ensuring that this is not overly economically burdensome for them. An "individuals should look after their own wellbeing" attitude is a "healthy people are responsible for staying healthy" attitude. It suggests not creating any incentive for people who do fall ill to do anything to prevent the spread -- too late for me, I'm already sick, not much more I can do to look after my own wellbeing than taking the rush hour subway to the emergency room, I guess, and then go straight to work so that I can afford the treatment. When the mathematics work out such that preventative measures taken by sick people are 100x more impactful than preventative measures taken by healthy people for a given expense, why wouldn't we try to encourage those measures to reduce transmission?