4 ms·

China tested hundreds of thousands of people in provinces with known cases, and found very little evidence of asymptomatic circulation. See my comment from a we

China tested hundreds of thousands of people in provinces with known cases, and found very little evidence of asymptomatic circulation. See my comment from a week ago, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22475853 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22475853, which quotes Bruce Aylward, an assistance director general and epidemiologist for the WHO. Our current evidence points to there not being millions of asymptomatic people.

btilly 7y ago
I see your HN comment from 2 weeks ago and raise you with a point in this article lifted from a recent Science paper. Namely, ...individuals with undetected infections were so prevalent in China that they apparently were the infection source for 86 percent of confirmed cases. This is strong evidence of asymptomatic circulation. This conclusion is not in contradiction to the evidence behind your previous comment. In mid-February with ~60k confirmed cases that would be 300-600k asymptomatic ones. Which means that China did not have millions of asymptomatic people at the time. And so it is no surprise that a broad testing regime failed to find what did not exist at that time. However what it also means is that as the number of confirmed cases skyrockets, it WILL be true (and possibly already is) that the number of asymptomatic cases will be in the millions.
- fspeech 7y ago
  The study is on the initial outbreak in Wuhan when testing was in short supply.
  - btilly 7y ago
    And has the testing story improved relative to the need? Also from the article and the same Science paper, For every confirmed case of COVID-19, there are likely another five to 10 people with undetected infections.
    - fspeech 7y ago
      They were talking about abysmal testing rate: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/science.abb3221 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/scie... ”We estimate 86% of all infections were undocumented (95% CI: [82%–90%]) prior to 23 January 2020 travel restrictions.”
- gbacon 7y ago
  “I’ll see … and raise” is known as a string raise and is seen as bad form or even cheating. Actions in poker must be atomic. https://upswingpoker.com/angle-shooting-string-bet-raise/ https://upswingpoker.com/angle-shooting-string-bet-raise/
  - magduf 7y ago
    Sorry, I don't know anything about poker, but didn't Riker do this all the time on TNG?
    - milesvp 7y ago
      He did, and the poker on the show was generally abysmal. But partly for the ‘I’ll see you... and raise you’ prevalence in drama is that it creates a more dramatic situation. The dramatic effect is the very thing that can be taken advantage of in poker, and is why there’s a rule at most professionally run tables that what you claim, on your turn, is what you must do. Once you call, you can no longer raise no matter how much you want to. Though the bigger reason for not allowing it, is that it can really add confusion and slow down the game when a person says call and the next person now has to wait until they’re sure the current asshole isn’t going to say ‘and raise’ before they can act. Oh, and keep in mind that poker is full of assholes who will do all kinds of anti social behavior to gain an edge. So the fact that this is a standard rule really gives some idea as to just how annoying it is to the poker community.
  - btilly 7y ago
    I will keep that in mind if we ever play poker. But the phrase remains a common idiom. And in an internet discussion like this, the rationale that makes it bad form in poker does not apply. I cannot see anyone's reactions until after my action is complete and I hit "reply". And therefore I cannot gain a read and final decision based on my incomplete first stage of the action.
dnautics 7y ago
What is the detection limit threshold on that test?
makomk 7y ago
I haven't been able to make heads nor tales of his logic. In Guangdong province, at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47% of people tested were positive. Guangdong province has a population of about 110 million people. If that was a representative random sample, that would mean a lot of infections, so he's clearly relying on the fact that it's a sample of people who saw a doctor because they had symptoms. Except that I don't see how you can use that to say anything about asymptomatic cases. It just doesn't make sense.
- fspeech 7y ago
  It's 0.5% of people who were tested for the flu, not the general public.
feanaro 7y ago
That still does not rule out mild cases which are regarded as a regular viral illness.

btilly 7y ago

I see your HN comment from 2 weeks ago and raise you with a point in this article lifted from a recent Science paper. Namely, ...individuals with undetected infections were so prevalent in China that they apparently were the infection source for 86 percent of confirmed cases. This is strong evidence of asymptomatic circulation. This conclusion is not in contradiction to the evidence behind your previous comment. In mid-February with ~60k confirmed cases that would be 300-600k asymptomatic ones. Which means that China did not have millions of asymptomatic people at the time. And so it is no surprise that a broad testing regime failed to find what did not exist at that time. However what it also means is that as the number of confirmed cases skyrockets, it WILL be true (and possibly already is) that the number of asymptomatic cases will be in the millions.

fspeech 7y ago
The study is on the initial outbreak in Wuhan when testing was in short supply.
- btilly 7y ago
  And has the testing story improved relative to the need? Also from the article and the same Science paper, For every confirmed case of COVID-19, there are likely another five to 10 people with undetected infections.
  - fspeech 7y ago
    They were talking about abysmal testing rate: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/science.abb3221 https://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2020/03/13/scie... ”We estimate 86% of all infections were undocumented (95% CI: [82%–90%]) prior to 23 January 2020 travel restrictions.”
gbacon 7y ago
“I’ll see … and raise” is known as a string raise and is seen as bad form or even cheating. Actions in poker must be atomic. https://upswingpoker.com/angle-shooting-string-bet-raise/ https://upswingpoker.com/angle-shooting-string-bet-raise/
- magduf 7y ago
  Sorry, I don't know anything about poker, but didn't Riker do this all the time on TNG?
  - milesvp 7y ago
    He did, and the poker on the show was generally abysmal. But partly for the ‘I’ll see you... and raise you’ prevalence in drama is that it creates a more dramatic situation. The dramatic effect is the very thing that can be taken advantage of in poker, and is why there’s a rule at most professionally run tables that what you claim, on your turn, is what you must do. Once you call, you can no longer raise no matter how much you want to. Though the bigger reason for not allowing it, is that it can really add confusion and slow down the game when a person says call and the next person now has to wait until they’re sure the current asshole isn’t going to say ‘and raise’ before they can act. Oh, and keep in mind that poker is full of assholes who will do all kinds of anti social behavior to gain an edge. So the fact that this is a standard rule really gives some idea as to just how annoying it is to the poker community.
- btilly 7y ago
  I will keep that in mind if we ever play poker. But the phrase remains a common idiom. And in an internet discussion like this, the rationale that makes it bad form in poker does not apply. I cannot see anyone's reactions until after my action is complete and I hit "reply". And therefore I cannot gain a read and final decision based on my incomplete first stage of the action.

dnautics 7y ago

What is the detection limit threshold on that test?

makomk 7y ago

I haven't been able to make heads nor tales of his logic. In Guangdong province, at the peak of the outbreak, 0.47% of people tested were positive. Guangdong province has a population of about 110 million people. If that was a representative random sample, that would mean a lot of infections, so he's clearly relying on the fact that it's a sample of people who saw a doctor because they had symptoms. Except that I don't see how you can use that to say anything about asymptomatic cases. It just doesn't make sense.

fspeech 7y ago
It's 0.5% of people who were tested for the flu, not the general public.

feanaro 7y ago

That still does not rule out mild cases which are regarded as a regular viral illness.