3 ms·

Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. The tests give us more data but make little difference unless they are used to rapidly trace outb

Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. The tests give us more data but make little difference unless they are used to rapidly trace outbreaks and quarantine entire areas, which just has not happened. And with something this viral, its only a matter of time before it spreads everywhere. The focus needs to be on slowing the spread and treatment. The treatment is about supporting the body while it fights the virus, and highly dependent on how & where the virus manifests. Some need oxygen therapy, some need antivirals, some even need lung transplants. In cases where the virus affects other organs, totally different treatment applies. The resource constraint there is general medical capacity - doctors, beds, ICUs, oxygen support, and probably a hundred other things.

spaced-out 7y ago
>Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. The issue with our lack of testing is that we have no idea what we're dealing with, which is a big part of why the market's freaking out. If we had been ramping up testing months ago, when it was already a massive disruption in China and should have been clear that it was only a matter of time before it got to the US, then we would have a lot more information now. This is why we need competent administrators running things like the CDC, the DoE, Homeland Security etc..., not political hacks.
- deckard1 7y ago
  > This is why we need competent administrators running things The GOP has a conflict of interest here. They don't want to give evidence that government can work. Their goal is to break government and then go "see, government doesn't work!" It's a splendid position to take, because anything that comes up you simply shrug and wipe your hands clean. You're not responsible for anything. While we all sit and ponder whether we're all going to die and if the economy will disappear overnight, let's all just remember the travesty that is Puerto Rico. If that's not enough, then kids in concentration camps. Oh? People care now because it impacts their little world? "No time for politics" says the people actively breaking the world.
- zaptheimpaler 7y ago
  I saw the writing on the wall in January. We didn't need tests, all we had to do was look at the urgency & scale of China's response and the R0 of the virus. It is literally exponential growth, and even a few people spreading the virus with a 2 week delay in symptoms all but guarantees the majority of the world is going to get it. There is no doubt about what we're dealing with, hasn't been any for 2 months. We needed information 2 months ago, we needed early action like quarantines, travel bans a month ago. Testing is the response to an old problem at this point. Large democratic, decentralized institutions are uniquely bad at the kind of fast response needed here and the government continues to act 1 months behind, so I have little faith that much will change. Most of the world will get it, but medical systems are mobilizing and hopefully most people will make it out ok.
- tzm 7y ago
  >Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. During H1N1 in 2009, within 30 days we tested 1 million people. This led to a vaccine developed within 6 months. Testing is core to understand spread.
ghufran_syed 7y ago
Funny how many people think "they were too slow with testing" - do any of these commentators have any idea how long it takes to develop a reliable, sensitive and hopefully specific test for a virus that probably didn't exist in its current form until around 3 months ago. Oh, and then also to be able to make a production line capable of producing millions of them while maintaining quality - why not criticize them for not yet developing an effective antiviral treatment and vaccine for the condition too?
- llampx 7y ago
  The WHO already had the test.
  - Jommi 7y ago
    Which test? What kind of distribution did that test have? What kind of distribution capacity did that test have? What kind of false positive rate?
    - tropdrop 7y ago
      Classic "the [solution] that exists isn't good enough, therefore we can't use it at all!" A pandemic is not the time to be picky - if anything, a high false positive rate helps. Would you rather 10 people quarantined, of whom only 2 are sick, or all 10 released into the wild because no test kit (of any sort) was available?
      - fragmede 7y ago
        To be fair, a test with high false-negative rate would be problematic. 10 people released into the wild, who think they don't have it, is worse than 10 people released into the wild who are uncertain about their status. Not saying that's what happened here (perfect is the enemy of the good!), just that it could be worse. It could always be worse.
        deleted 7y ago
8bitsrule 7y ago
Whatever we -have- got, we use to identify and isolate, to flatten the curve. Test priority for healthcare workers. "Containment is making sure all the cases are identified, controlled, and isolated. It’s what Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan or Taiwan are doing so well: They very quickly limit people coming in, identify the sick, immediately isolate them, use heavy protective gear to protect their health workers, track all their contacts, quarantine them…" https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...

spaced-out 7y ago

>Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. The issue with our lack of testing is that we have no idea what we're dealing with, which is a big part of why the market's freaking out. If we had been ramping up testing months ago, when it was already a massive disruption in China and should have been clear that it was only a matter of time before it got to the US, then we would have a lot more information now. This is why we need competent administrators running things like the CDC, the DoE, Homeland Security etc..., not political hacks.

deckard1 7y ago
> This is why we need competent administrators running things The GOP has a conflict of interest here. They don't want to give evidence that government can work. Their goal is to break government and then go "see, government doesn't work!" It's a splendid position to take, because anything that comes up you simply shrug and wipe your hands clean. You're not responsible for anything. While we all sit and ponder whether we're all going to die and if the economy will disappear overnight, let's all just remember the travesty that is Puerto Rico. If that's not enough, then kids in concentration camps. Oh? People care now because it impacts their little world? "No time for politics" says the people actively breaking the world.
zaptheimpaler 7y ago
I saw the writing on the wall in January. We didn't need tests, all we had to do was look at the urgency & scale of China's response and the R0 of the virus. It is literally exponential growth, and even a few people spreading the virus with a 2 week delay in symptoms all but guarantees the majority of the world is going to get it. There is no doubt about what we're dealing with, hasn't been any for 2 months. We needed information 2 months ago, we needed early action like quarantines, travel bans a month ago. Testing is the response to an old problem at this point. Large democratic, decentralized institutions are uniquely bad at the kind of fast response needed here and the government continues to act 1 months behind, so I have little faith that much will change. Most of the world will get it, but medical systems are mobilizing and hopefully most people will make it out ok.
tzm 7y ago
>Slight tangent, but the excessive focus on tests is misguided. During H1N1 in 2009, within 30 days we tested 1 million people. This led to a vaccine developed within 6 months. Testing is core to understand spread.

ghufran_syed 7y ago

Funny how many people think "they were too slow with testing" - do any of these commentators have any idea how long it takes to develop a reliable, sensitive and hopefully specific test for a virus that probably didn't exist in its current form until around 3 months ago. Oh, and then also to be able to make a production line capable of producing millions of them while maintaining quality - why not criticize them for not yet developing an effective antiviral treatment and vaccine for the condition too?

llampx 7y ago
The WHO already had the test.
- Jommi 7y ago
  Which test? What kind of distribution did that test have? What kind of distribution capacity did that test have? What kind of false positive rate?
  - tropdrop 7y ago
    Classic "the [solution] that exists isn't good enough, therefore we can't use it at all!" A pandemic is not the time to be picky - if anything, a high false positive rate helps. Would you rather 10 people quarantined, of whom only 2 are sick, or all 10 released into the wild because no test kit (of any sort) was available?
    - fragmede 7y ago
      To be fair, a test with high false-negative rate would be problematic. 10 people released into the wild, who think they don't have it, is worse than 10 people released into the wild who are uncertain about their status. Not saying that's what happened here (perfect is the enemy of the good!), just that it could be worse. It could always be worse.
      - deleted 7y ago

8bitsrule 7y ago

Whatever we -have- got, we use to identify and isolate, to flatten the curve. Test priority for healthcare workers. "Containment is making sure all the cases are identified, controlled, and isolated. It’s what Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan or Taiwan are doing so well: They very quickly limit people coming in, identify the sick, immediately isolate them, use heavy protective gear to protect their health workers, track all their contacts, quarantine them…" https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-peop...