4 ms·

I have a hard time faulting the CDC for the response overall, but I just don't understand why they decided to make their own test at the beginning. Was it brav

I have a hard time faulting the CDC for the response overall, but I just don't understand why they decided to make their own test at the beginning. Was it bravado? Did they think the 70% accuracy of the WHO test wasn't good enough? If they didn't make their own test, they wouldn't have fubarred the manufacturing, which would have given us more tests. One of the CDC's main goals, if not the main goal in this, is to spread out the panic. Given this goal, the fact that we're in flu season, and the lack of test kits, I can understand the stringent testing criteria. They choose the best option in a bad situation, and I think they've done a pretty good job. However, it seems like a lot of problems could have been avoided if they just used the WHO tests.

surge 7y ago
The test accuracy of the WHO test as far as I understood it was good if someone was already experiencing symptoms once viral load was high enough. The bigger issue was false negatives, people would get released from quarantine measures, then spread it (like the cruise ship). They recommended anyone within contact to self quarantine until symptoms had reached a point they could get a definitive test. At this point testing early and coming up negative doesn't mean anything, you should still stay quarantined and continuously get retested, since a lot of people who tested negative were found to have had it the whole time when symptoms present and were given the all clear before. In summary, the testing early doesn't change the decision tree, which is stay quarantined for 14 days, until symptoms present or not, so little point was seen to testing until then. Problem is now, we can't track it, so everyone ideally should self quarantine or limit as much as possible social interaction and get tested if they have good reason to believe they've been exposed. Early testing will catch a lot of people but not all, so it will slow the spread, so at this point the decision tree changes and we need to start testing more, if nothing else to get a sample to extrapolate the true spread of this thing.
- snapetom 7y ago
  > In summary, the testing early doesn't change the decision tree, which is stay quarantined for 14 days, until symptoms present or not, so little point was seen to testing until then. That makes a ton of sense. Thank you!
makomk 7y ago
As far as I can tell, the answer is quite simple: there was no WHO test at the beginning. The CDC's test was developed and rolled out pretty much in parallel with the German one the WHO has been using. They deployed it to state testing labs at pretty much exactly the same time as WHO Europe was rolling theirs out to one lab per European state. They also had a very aggressive plan to start testing flu surveillance samples in mid-February, much sooner than other countries. I'm not convinced they could pull off such an aggressive rollout without manufacturing their own tests.

surge 7y ago

The test accuracy of the WHO test as far as I understood it was good if someone was already experiencing symptoms once viral load was high enough. The bigger issue was false negatives, people would get released from quarantine measures, then spread it (like the cruise ship). They recommended anyone within contact to self quarantine until symptoms had reached a point they could get a definitive test. At this point testing early and coming up negative doesn't mean anything, you should still stay quarantined and continuously get retested, since a lot of people who tested negative were found to have had it the whole time when symptoms present and were given the all clear before. In summary, the testing early doesn't change the decision tree, which is stay quarantined for 14 days, until symptoms present or not, so little point was seen to testing until then. Problem is now, we can't track it, so everyone ideally should self quarantine or limit as much as possible social interaction and get tested if they have good reason to believe they've been exposed. Early testing will catch a lot of people but not all, so it will slow the spread, so at this point the decision tree changes and we need to start testing more, if nothing else to get a sample to extrapolate the true spread of this thing.

snapetom 7y ago
> In summary, the testing early doesn't change the decision tree, which is stay quarantined for 14 days, until symptoms present or not, so little point was seen to testing until then. That makes a ton of sense. Thank you!

makomk 7y ago

As far as I can tell, the answer is quite simple: there was no WHO test at the beginning. The CDC's test was developed and rolled out pretty much in parallel with the German one the WHO has been using. They deployed it to state testing labs at pretty much exactly the same time as WHO Europe was rolling theirs out to one lab per European state. They also had a very aggressive plan to start testing flu surveillance samples in mid-February, much sooner than other countries. I'm not convinced they could pull off such an aggressive rollout without manufacturing their own tests.