3 ms·

I doubt the lack of test availability is directly increasing mortality. The UK like many other countries the UK is advising self isolation for those with sympt

I doubt the lack of test availability is directly increasing mortality. The UK like many other countries the UK is advising self isolation for those with symptoms, and I imagine those who ignore this would not isolate even if they did test positive. There’s no specific treatment. Those admitted requiring ventilatory support have that decision made on other grounds, and a CT can show a consistent viral pneumonia and help rule out other causes, which is good enough diagnostically when the pre-test probability is likely to be so high. I believe when PCR testing was not readily available in China they were using ct based diagnostic criteria. Unless there’s something I’m missing, the main benefits of a readily available test would be getting potentially symptomatic but actually negative key workers back from self isolation and perhaps catching the asymptotic if it could be rolled out widely enough.

opk 7y ago
That's not what I meant. It is affecting the published rates, i.e. the statistics. Sorry, poor wording on my part.
- daedalus_f 7y ago
  Ahh, didn’t think about it from that angle, apologies.
SkyBelow 7y ago
>I doubt the lack of test availability is directly increasing mortality. Directly being the key word and kind of a weasel word. The real question should be if it is indirectly impacting mortality. For example by making cases look less numerous than they are which may result in a change in individual behavior and making it harder to track who has it so the people who might be able to go into far stricter isolation currently don't because their cost benefit analysis is saying it isn't yet at the threshold to do so. For example, I have a brother living with our parents who is still having to go to his job. Because of the current reported spread in our state, his job hasn't closed and it he doesn't think it reasonable to take quarantined leave. Further testing would give him better information to make the choice to skip out on his job for the sake of protecting our parents or may otherwise lead to his job temporarily closing. There is also the factor of if someone tests positive and is going to work they will be facing far more symptoms than if they can write it off as just being a cold or allergies. If someone shows up to work and has a positive test, the other workers are at a much better position to just walk on of the job until the manager sends the sick worker home than if the initial worker shows up with and claims it is a cold. None of these are direct, but all of these are indirect ways of reducing spread and mortality.
fragmede 7y ago
Directly? No. There's no cure. If you're in the ER and dangerously short of breath, they're going to treat you as best they can. Since there isn't a cure or a proven treatment approved by the FDA for Covid-19, you'll be treated for viral pneumonia and hope that you get better. We don't have a cure, so the test really only says if you're highly infectious, so they know which corner of the hospital to put you in, and what level of precautions nurses and doctors should take around you. Let's stop trying to rationalize the lack of testing though. It's embarrassing and shameful that we can't test people. Our infrastructure and our leadership weren't up to the task, even when other countries' was. That's a really difficult idea to confront. Saying "oh but we didn't really need that" won't change that.

opk 7y ago

That's not what I meant. It is affecting the published rates, i.e. the statistics. Sorry, poor wording on my part.

daedalus_f 7y ago
Ahh, didn’t think about it from that angle, apologies.

SkyBelow 7y ago

>I doubt the lack of test availability is directly increasing mortality. Directly being the key word and kind of a weasel word. The real question should be if it is indirectly impacting mortality. For example by making cases look less numerous than they are which may result in a change in individual behavior and making it harder to track who has it so the people who might be able to go into far stricter isolation currently don't because their cost benefit analysis is saying it isn't yet at the threshold to do so. For example, I have a brother living with our parents who is still having to go to his job. Because of the current reported spread in our state, his job hasn't closed and it he doesn't think it reasonable to take quarantined leave. Further testing would give him better information to make the choice to skip out on his job for the sake of protecting our parents or may otherwise lead to his job temporarily closing. There is also the factor of if someone tests positive and is going to work they will be facing far more symptoms than if they can write it off as just being a cold or allergies. If someone shows up to work and has a positive test, the other workers are at a much better position to just walk on of the job until the manager sends the sick worker home than if the initial worker shows up with and claims it is a cold. None of these are direct, but all of these are indirect ways of reducing spread and mortality.

fragmede 7y ago

Directly? No. There's no cure. If you're in the ER and dangerously short of breath, they're going to treat you as best they can. Since there isn't a cure or a proven treatment approved by the FDA for Covid-19, you'll be treated for viral pneumonia and hope that you get better. We don't have a cure, so the test really only says if you're highly infectious, so they know which corner of the hospital to put you in, and what level of precautions nurses and doctors should take around you. Let's stop trying to rationalize the lack of testing though. It's embarrassing and shameful that we can't test people. Our infrastructure and our leadership weren't up to the task, even when other countries' was. That's a really difficult idea to confront. Saying "oh but we didn't really need that" won't change that.