4 ms·

Why wasn't this developed in January when the need was clear?

by wbl 7y ago

glitchc 7y ago
It wasn’t a national emergency in Jan. WHO had also not declared it a pandemic yet.
- ajross 7y ago
  Everyone serious knew it was coming in January. Once it's declared a pandemic, it's already arrived. People have to stop pretending that "no one could have known". Everybody knew. We were all yelling about it at the time.
  - glitchc 7y ago
    We have to wait for evidence (numbers) before declaring it a pandemic. Cooler heads must prevail. Plus, Roche would not have been able to obtain a 24 hour approval turnaround without the official declaration of emergency.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - dkarl 7y ago
      You mentioned the lack of a declared pandemic in response to a statement that the need for tests was clear in January. Now you mention the need for "numbers" (i.e., positive tests) in the same context. I think you're getting it backwards. A widely available test was essential for establishing that it was a pandemic. We all need to keep cool heads, but we don't need to make excuses or pretend that the lack of tests in the U.S. was the result of prudence and good sense. We could have responded faster. Our national policy isn't dictated by the WHO. It was a failure. If waiting for the WHO to declare a pandemic held back our response, we shouldn't have waited. If we needed a national emergency declared earlier in order to respond correctly, we should have declared it.
  - folli 7y ago
    Damn, you must have made billions on the stock market since you already knew in January what was gonna happen.
    - ajross 7y ago
      Why are people like this? Everyone knew more testing (the subject at hand) was needed. The second the first case was detected in the US (January 22) there was instant coverage of the inability of people in Seattle to get tests. And there were no tests. And there remained no tests. And only now, as the US clusters have started to spread out of control, are we seeing a significant acceleration in test availability (c.f. the linked article, about quick approval for a new test mechanism). And we know this wasn't impossible, because many nations (South Korea, Taiwan, Japan) got this right and managed extensive testing. Why are people resistant to this argument? We. Fucked. Up. It's maybe not productive to argue about recriminations at this point, but if so it's even worse to try to excuse it away or pretend that it didn't happen. It was a terrible mistake, and right now it looks like lots of people are going to die because of it.
      - briffle 7y ago
        The State of Oregon lab can process 80 samples a day. Every person gets at least 2 samples taken. They are waiting on >150 samples to be tested...
    - AriaMinaei 7y ago
      > you must have made billions on the stock market Shorting the market in January and February would've been more of a bet on government inaction than a bet on any inherent characteristics of the virus. Many predicted large epidemics in multiple countries, but the CDC/FDA testing fiasco, or the lackluster response in EU wasn't easy to predict. I agree with OP that "everyone should stop pretending that 'no one could have known'". The probability of having a large epidemic in each country was significant, definitely above 2%. That number alone would've warranted ramping up production of test kits and sanitary supplies, building fever clinics, doing emergency drills, and setting up some data sharing infrastructure between healthcare providers. Most developed countries didn't do any of that.
- roywiggins 7y ago
  Half the problem was a lack of tests, you can't declare a pandemic until people have tested positive so waiting for that is rather self-defeating.
- KarlKemp 7y ago
  The WHO did declare it a “Global Health Emergency” in January: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51319967/coronavirus-declared-a-global-emergency-by-the-world-health-organization?intlink_from_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Ftopics%2Fc207p54m4pnt%2Fworld-health-organization-who&link_location=live-reporting-map https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51319967/coronavirus-decla... The “Pandemic” designation wasn’t appropriate back then because it just wasn’t a pandemic at that time. They very clearly said it was on its way to becoming one. I’m starting to suspect this griping about the WHO is somehow motivated. People tend not to be this willfully stupid unless politics are involved.
  - ComputerGuru 7y ago
    @glitchc is right though! He said “national emergency” and in January the only nation impacted was China ;) (Even though it was obvious to anyone with half a brain in January that this thing was going to spread and become a global problem in no time... and that the WHO said as much, too.)
mattkrause 7y ago
It probably wasn't developed overnight; it was just approved quickly.
gotstad 7y ago
Development is not necessarily the hardest part. You are developing a medical device that needs to be validated. Even with expedited approvals this is a huge undertaking where only a limited amount of people can be involved at the same time.

Why wasn't this developed in January when the need was clear?

by wbl 7y ago

Why wasn't this developed in January when the need was clear?

glitchc 7y ago

It wasn’t a national emergency in Jan. WHO had also not declared it a pandemic yet.

ajross 7y ago
Everyone serious knew it was coming in January. Once it's declared a pandemic, it's already arrived. People have to stop pretending that "no one could have known". Everybody knew. We were all yelling about it at the time.
- glitchc 7y ago
  We have to wait for evidence (numbers) before declaring it a pandemic. Cooler heads must prevail. Plus, Roche would not have been able to obtain a 24 hour approval turnaround without the official declaration of emergency.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - dkarl 7y ago
    You mentioned the lack of a declared pandemic in response to a statement that the need for tests was clear in January. Now you mention the need for "numbers" (i.e., positive tests) in the same context. I think you're getting it backwards. A widely available test was essential for establishing that it was a pandemic. We all need to keep cool heads, but we don't need to make excuses or pretend that the lack of tests in the U.S. was the result of prudence and good sense. We could have responded faster. Our national policy isn't dictated by the WHO. It was a failure. If waiting for the WHO to declare a pandemic held back our response, we shouldn't have waited. If we needed a national emergency declared earlier in order to respond correctly, we should have declared it.
- folli 7y ago
  Damn, you must have made billions on the stock market since you already knew in January what was gonna happen.
  - ajross 7y ago
    Why are people like this? Everyone knew more testing (the subject at hand) was needed. The second the first case was detected in the US (January 22) there was instant coverage of the inability of people in Seattle to get tests. And there were no tests. And there remained no tests. And only now, as the US clusters have started to spread out of control, are we seeing a significant acceleration in test availability (c.f. the linked article, about quick approval for a new test mechanism). And we know this wasn't impossible, because many nations (South Korea, Taiwan, Japan) got this right and managed extensive testing. Why are people resistant to this argument? We. Fucked. Up. It's maybe not productive to argue about recriminations at this point, but if so it's even worse to try to excuse it away or pretend that it didn't happen. It was a terrible mistake, and right now it looks like lots of people are going to die because of it.
    - briffle 7y ago
      The State of Oregon lab can process 80 samples a day. Every person gets at least 2 samples taken. They are waiting on >150 samples to be tested...
  - AriaMinaei 7y ago
    > you must have made billions on the stock market Shorting the market in January and February would've been more of a bet on government inaction than a bet on any inherent characteristics of the virus. Many predicted large epidemics in multiple countries, but the CDC/FDA testing fiasco, or the lackluster response in EU wasn't easy to predict. I agree with OP that "everyone should stop pretending that 'no one could have known'". The probability of having a large epidemic in each country was significant, definitely above 2%. That number alone would've warranted ramping up production of test kits and sanitary supplies, building fever clinics, doing emergency drills, and setting up some data sharing infrastructure between healthcare providers. Most developed countries didn't do any of that.
roywiggins 7y ago
Half the problem was a lack of tests, you can't declare a pandemic until people have tested positive so waiting for that is rather self-defeating.
KarlKemp 7y ago
The WHO did declare it a “Global Health Emergency” in January: https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51319967/coronavirus-declared-a-global-emergency-by-the-world-health-organization?intlink_from_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.com%2Fnews%2Ftopics%2Fc207p54m4pnt%2Fworld-health-organization-who&link_location=live-reporting-map https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-51319967/coronavirus-decla... The “Pandemic” designation wasn’t appropriate back then because it just wasn’t a pandemic at that time. They very clearly said it was on its way to becoming one. I’m starting to suspect this griping about the WHO is somehow motivated. People tend not to be this willfully stupid unless politics are involved.
- ComputerGuru 7y ago
  @glitchc is right though! He said “national emergency” and in January the only nation impacted was China ;) (Even though it was obvious to anyone with half a brain in January that this thing was going to spread and become a global problem in no time... and that the WHO said as much, too.)

mattkrause 7y ago

It probably wasn't developed overnight; it was just approved quickly.

gotstad 7y ago

Development is not necessarily the hardest part. You are developing a medical device that needs to be validated. Even with expedited approvals this is a huge undertaking where only a limited amount of people can be involved at the same time.