8 ms·

Coronavirus may have spread undetected in US for weeks

35 points by devy 7y ago

Ecstatify 7y ago
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-may-have-been-in-italy-for-weeks-before-it-was-detected https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-ma...
adrianN 7y ago
I heard that China tests literally everyone who shows up a a doctor's office with symptoms of a common cold. Why isn't the US testing more people?
- adventured 7y ago
  That's likely false information. China had a severe limitation on testing kits through most of the upward surge in the virus outbreak. They have 20, 50, 100, 500 million test kits? No they do not. They're testing everyone? No they are not. Why isn't the US testing everyone? There are nowhere near enough test kits to do it. There are not enough test kits to go around anywhere on the planet, not even remotely close.
  - knzhou 7y ago
    Right now China can test 1.6 million a week, and now that they've gotten that capacity they barely need it. 1.6 million a week wouldn't be enough to screen everybody with a sniffle in the US, but it would get us most of the way.
    - koheripbal 7y ago
      I dont know where you heard that number. It doesn't seem reasonably accurate.
      - Fjolsvith 7y ago
        This article gives that number: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/united-states-badly-bungled-coronavirus-testing-things-may-soon-improve https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/united-states-badly-...
- zachguo 7y ago
  They f*ed up. But I don't understand why they refused to use the testing kits provided by WHO. https://www.axios.com/cdc-lab-coronavirus-contaminated-6dc9726d-dea3-423f-b5ad-eb7b1e44c2e2.html https://www.axios.com/cdc-lab-coronavirus-contaminated-6dc97...
- devy 7y ago
  Because CDC didn't authorized the local/state to perform typical RT-PCR testing[1] for COVID-19 until a few days ago and their guideline for testing COVID-19 super strict probably due to funding and they have been bottlenecked in delivering results. We know it is very expensive in the U.S. for such testings (so it's likely related the fundings are not ready, given that Trump just recently announced budget with significant cuts to CDC and WHO) and U.S. is obviously NOT prepared.[2][3] However, CT scans are a much better, cheaper and economical way in clinical settings to confirm COVID-19[1]. Results come out in minutes and in negligible costs vs. thousands of dollars for RT-PCR testing. Chinese government's website has the most comprehensive guidelines and treatments recommendations on their official website.[4] Washington State today is like the early January of Wuhan, where infections aren't officially confirmed even though it's been outbreak for weeks. [1]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200226151951.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200226151951.h... [2]: https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-will-mark-the-end-of-affluence-politics/ https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-will-mark-the-end-of-af... [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-preparation-united-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-prepar... [4]: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-02/19/content_5480958.htm http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-02/19/content_5480958.htm
  - dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
    > However, CT scans are a much better, cheaper and economical way in clinical settings to confirm COVID-19[1]. Unfortunately CT scans have their own risk for the patient that traditional blood tests don't have.
  - Fjolsvith 7y ago
    > (so it's likely related the fundings are not ready, given that Trump just recently announced budget with significant cuts to CDC and WHO) Announcing funding cuts isn't the same as actually cutting them. The CDC budget won't be reduced until congress approves it. [1] 1. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-cut-cdc-budget/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-cut-cdc-budget/
nostromo 7y ago
Doesn't the fact that so many people have it, and the vast majority of them don't even get sick enough to request medical care -- or to make it obvious in retrospect who they got the virus from -- suggest that the virus is much less deadly than originally feared?
- adventured 7y ago
  No. Based on the cases so far, we have a decent idea of the mortality rate. 2-3% is a reasonable figure. That's anywhere from - roughly - 30 to 60 times higher than the common flu depending on the year you source. It might suggest that not very many people are multiple weeks into having it; possibly that not very many older people have it yet (drastically higher mortality rate for people over ~50-60 years of age); and or a combination of the two. If 3,000 people have it in the US right now, undetected (some may be at home, sick, in the second week of having it, thinking it's the common flu; or the symptoms may be mild enough to not alarm in most cases), they may be in the first week or two of having it. If 300 of those people have had it long enough to die from it, and 2-3% of those people do die from it, you're only talking about maybe 6-10 people (point being, it'd be a small number).
  - nostromo 7y ago
    2-3% is not a reasonable estimate. It keeps getting lowered, especially in a western context with better medical care. 2% was an early estimate in a Chinese context, but even there it's going down as more cases are identified. Now people are estimating 1.5%, 1%, or even less. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
    - adventured 7y ago
      2-3% wasn't an early estimate for China. It's the figure. It's based on the reported total cases and reported deaths. We have no other figures to go on out of China other than what they've officially reported (anything else is pointless speculation, we could each claim anything). The death rate there is in that 2-3% range so far. I do agree, generally, with your point that highly developed healthcare systems should be able to get the mortality rate under whatever the figures are in China. That might only mean 1.5% to 2% though, given China's reported mortality figure is closer to the high 3% area.
tda 7y ago
Can anyone explain to me why in Asia the authorities seem to be going all in with extraordinary containment measures and testing larger groups of people, whilst in Europe and North America the authorities are responding very different? Almost no lock downs, very limited testing etc. In one country a single patient is enough to lock thousands in a hotel or on a cruise ship for days, while in e.g. the Netherlands everyone is assumed to be corona free. You can only get a test if you have a fever, are coughing and have been in contact with a known patient. Either China is hugely overreacting, or we in Europe/US are in deep trouble. There is not a chance the virus can be contained here I think. In the last week he Netherlands has gone from 0 known patients to about ten, which each have probably infected multiple others. E.g. one was in the ICU (not in isolation) for a week just before diagnosed.
- dylz 7y ago
  Imagine the type of reaction if the US decided to lock down a major city, compared to an authoritarian regime with full control over movement.
- nostromo 7y ago
  China thought this was more like SARS. SARS kills 10% of people infected. Now we know that COVID-19 is much, much less deadly than SARS. But China didn't know that when the virus was first spreading.
jrs235 7y ago
Dupe. Earlier submission and more commentary here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22461301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22461301

35 points by devy 7y ago

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-may-have-been-in-italy-for-weeks-before-it-was-detected https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-ma...

adrianN 7y ago

I heard that China tests literally everyone who shows up a a doctor's office with symptoms of a common cold. Why isn't the US testing more people?

adventured 7y ago
That's likely false information. China had a severe limitation on testing kits through most of the upward surge in the virus outbreak. They have 20, 50, 100, 500 million test kits? No they do not. They're testing everyone? No they are not. Why isn't the US testing everyone? There are nowhere near enough test kits to do it. There are not enough test kits to go around anywhere on the planet, not even remotely close.
- knzhou 7y ago
  Right now China can test 1.6 million a week, and now that they've gotten that capacity they barely need it. 1.6 million a week wouldn't be enough to screen everybody with a sniffle in the US, but it would get us most of the way.
  - koheripbal 7y ago
    I dont know where you heard that number. It doesn't seem reasonably accurate.
    - Fjolsvith 7y ago
      This article gives that number: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/united-states-badly-bungled-coronavirus-testing-things-may-soon-improve https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/02/united-states-badly-...
zachguo 7y ago
They f*ed up. But I don't understand why they refused to use the testing kits provided by WHO. https://www.axios.com/cdc-lab-coronavirus-contaminated-6dc9726d-dea3-423f-b5ad-eb7b1e44c2e2.html https://www.axios.com/cdc-lab-coronavirus-contaminated-6dc97...
devy 7y ago
Because CDC didn't authorized the local/state to perform typical RT-PCR testing[1] for COVID-19 until a few days ago and their guideline for testing COVID-19 super strict probably due to funding and they have been bottlenecked in delivering results. We know it is very expensive in the U.S. for such testings (so it's likely related the fundings are not ready, given that Trump just recently announced budget with significant cuts to CDC and WHO) and U.S. is obviously NOT prepared.[2][3] However, CT scans are a much better, cheaper and economical way in clinical settings to confirm COVID-19[1]. Results come out in minutes and in negligible costs vs. thousands of dollars for RT-PCR testing. Chinese government's website has the most comprehensive guidelines and treatments recommendations on their official website.[4] Washington State today is like the early January of Wuhan, where infections aren't officially confirmed even though it's been outbreak for weeks. [1]: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200226151951.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200226151951.h... [2]: https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-will-mark-the-end-of-affluence-politics/ https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-will-mark-the-end-of-af... [3]: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-preparation-united-states.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-prepar... [4]: http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-02/19/content_5480958.htm http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-02/19/content_5480958.htm
- dvfjsdhgfv 7y ago
  > However, CT scans are a much better, cheaper and economical way in clinical settings to confirm COVID-19[1]. Unfortunately CT scans have their own risk for the patient that traditional blood tests don't have.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago
  > (so it's likely related the fundings are not ready, given that Trump just recently announced budget with significant cuts to CDC and WHO) Announcing funding cuts isn't the same as actually cutting them. The CDC budget won't be reduced until congress approves it. [1] 1. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-cut-cdc-budget/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-cut-cdc-budget/

nostromo 7y ago

Doesn't the fact that so many people have it, and the vast majority of them don't even get sick enough to request medical care -- or to make it obvious in retrospect who they got the virus from -- suggest that the virus is much less deadly than originally feared?

adventured 7y ago
No. Based on the cases so far, we have a decent idea of the mortality rate. 2-3% is a reasonable figure. That's anywhere from - roughly - 30 to 60 times higher than the common flu depending on the year you source. It might suggest that not very many people are multiple weeks into having it; possibly that not very many older people have it yet (drastically higher mortality rate for people over ~50-60 years of age); and or a combination of the two. If 3,000 people have it in the US right now, undetected (some may be at home, sick, in the second week of having it, thinking it's the common flu; or the symptoms may be mild enough to not alarm in most cases), they may be in the first week or two of having it. If 300 of those people have had it long enough to die from it, and 2-3% of those people do die from it, you're only talking about maybe 6-10 people (point being, it'd be a small number).
- nostromo 7y ago
  2-3% is not a reasonable estimate. It keeps getting lowered, especially in a western context with better medical care. 2% was an early estimate in a Chinese context, but even there it's going down as more cases are identified. Now people are estimating 1.5%, 1%, or even less. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387
  - adventured 7y ago
    2-3% wasn't an early estimate for China. It's the figure. It's based on the reported total cases and reported deaths. We have no other figures to go on out of China other than what they've officially reported (anything else is pointless speculation, we could each claim anything). The death rate there is in that 2-3% range so far. I do agree, generally, with your point that highly developed healthcare systems should be able to get the mortality rate under whatever the figures are in China. That might only mean 1.5% to 2% though, given China's reported mortality figure is closer to the high 3% area.

tda 7y ago

Can anyone explain to me why in Asia the authorities seem to be going all in with extraordinary containment measures and testing larger groups of people, whilst in Europe and North America the authorities are responding very different? Almost no lock downs, very limited testing etc. In one country a single patient is enough to lock thousands in a hotel or on a cruise ship for days, while in e.g. the Netherlands everyone is assumed to be corona free. You can only get a test if you have a fever, are coughing and have been in contact with a known patient. Either China is hugely overreacting, or we in Europe/US are in deep trouble. There is not a chance the virus can be contained here I think. In the last week he Netherlands has gone from 0 known patients to about ten, which each have probably infected multiple others. E.g. one was in the ICU (not in isolation) for a week just before diagnosed.

dylz 7y ago
Imagine the type of reaction if the US decided to lock down a major city, compared to an authoritarian regime with full control over movement.
nostromo 7y ago
China thought this was more like SARS. SARS kills 10% of people infected. Now we know that COVID-19 is much, much less deadly than SARS. But China didn't know that when the virus was first spreading.

jrs235 7y ago

Dupe. Earlier submission and more commentary here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22461301 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22461301