4 ms·

> As the coronavirus epidemic spread around the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided restrictive guidance on who should be tested, arc

> As the coronavirus epidemic spread around the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided restrictive guidance on who should be tested, archived pages on its website show. While agencies in other countries were advising and conducting widespread testing, the CDC, charged with setting the U.S. standard for who should be tested for the virus, kept its criteria limited Well, "other countries" also did the same. Spain, for example, seems to be the 3rd country with most infected and I got pneumonia about 2 weeks ago. Called the agencies here but they still didn't want to test me, even with pneumonia! Still got a cough since then and they still won't test me. So, the US is not alone. And it does make a bit sense, I didn't require hospitalization, so makes sense they want to save the resources. But I feel like the article author could have done some better research.

bilbo0s 7y ago
Well, that's a good point. If you don't have the tests, you don't have the tests. I get that. But then just say, "Sorry guys, we can only test critical cases and emergency personnel right now because we don't have the tests." What's concerning is that it's possible to reach a point where a person presenting with pneumonia, is not a critical case.
- vladvasiliu 7y ago
  For me it's been pretty clear that governments in many countries have been caught unprepared. Does it really surprise many people that often governments are wont to downplay such situations? It's pretty much the same story with the masks, which is a political scandal in France at the moment.
rmetzler 7y ago
Germany does the same. I’m under the impression that there is a big selection bias because I know a lot of friends who have symptoms but can’t get testing because they don’t fit the criteria. And the criteria is having contact with a known corona patient or traveled to a risk area.
- maxerickson 7y ago
  ~90% of tests administered with restrictive criteria come back negative. There's a lot of other infections out there. I don't say that to diminish the importance of testing, my point is that the anecdotes aren't necessarily very informative.
  - rmetzler 7y ago
    Do you have a source for that number? I'm asking, because I somewhat feel like this number is supportive of my assumption that they test the wrong people. I understand that the symptoms are pretty ordinary and there are a lot of pathogens which could cause it. And you're right, all I have are anecdotes. My own cough is still going on for almost two weeks now. I'm pretty sure that I got it from a coughing man on my commuting train. Four days later I had a sore throat and on the fifth day I had this cough. If this person was tested, and was positive, there's no chance they could find me.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      https://covidtracking.com/data/ https://covidtracking.com/data/ I wouldn't double down on an exact number, but it's clear enough that there are lots of negative tests happening in the US.
    - acqq 7y ago
      Across the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing
- JBlue42 7y ago
  In terms of 'symptoms', in the US they've kept it very basic with three listed: 1) fever 2) cough 3) shortness of breath. They seem very generic to me and probably result in a lot of unnecessary panicked phone calls. From the actual descriptions of patients that have gone through it and been hospitalized, there are much worse symptoms, and maybe they should be addressed more immediately. The main one I've come across is the heavy chest pressure. I don't understand why, in the US at least, there isn't more specific messaging so that we can make sure people with more severe or COVID-19-related symptoms have the ability to get through. Not to mention the BS here of having to 'call your doctor' first before getting seen. There are a lot of people out there now without primary care doctors or that can't afford a visit. There have been no federal instructions on how we would get waivers for visits, testing, and possible hospitalization. If you've ever had to fight with medical billing in the US, it's frustrating and will be even more so after all this dies down. On a side-note: I was turned away from donating blood yesterday because I admitted to having a runny nose and a bit drainage that caused some coughing. I have seasonal allergies - it's March, it's been raining and plants are blooming, etc. I understand the caution but I had no fever (tested at 36.6 C / 97.8 F), which is about the same temp I've had for the past week (I've tested that and my blood pressure daily, just in case). I was a bit frustrated, because I really wanted to do something immediate to give back but so be it. While walking home, it did make me wonder why they even bother taking 'healthy' people who could be asymptomatic if it's such a concern. They admitted to having no way to test the blood. I think there's a lot that needs to be fixed and I hope that this crisis will provide a better future for us all. Epidemics aren't going to go away. We can learn and plan better.
js2 7y ago
The U.S. likes to think of itself as the world leader. We should hold ourselves to that standard. "Other countries" such as South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan were conducting widespread testing while the U.S. was and still is not. More importantly, the U.S. could and should have provided global leadership as it did for the 2014 Ebola outbreak.
- capableweb 7y ago
  > The U.S. likes to think of itself as the world leader. Yeah, we in the rest of the world is very aware of that and frankly a bit tired of it. But my grief about that is nowhere as big as South American or countries in the middle east. > the U.S. could and should have provided global leadership Realistically, I don't don't think the US would be able to provide global leadership. Your leaders were denying that this outbreak was even real and the person responsible for the containment is a person who believes prayers can actually solve things. So I don't think anyone is expecting the US to have any real play on the world scene today.
  - js2 7y ago
    When I wrote "could and should have provided global leadership," I was referring to an alternate reality where my country elected Hillary Clinton.
    - capableweb 7y ago
      When I wrote "we in the rest of the world is very aware of that and frankly a bit tired of it" I wasn't referring to any particular person, could be Trump, could be Clinton or could be Obama. No one except the US wants the US to keep playing world police/leader. This is the time to work together, not for one country to be the leader.
      - js2 7y ago
        I want the U.S to be the best global partner it can in fighting this pandemic and that’s impossible under its current leadership. Leadership doesn't mean telling the rest of the world what to do or being its cop. Leadership means the sorts of things outlined here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/opinion/coronavirus-mcchrystal-leadership.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/opinion/coronavirus-mcchr... > This is the time to work together, Agreed. Best of luck in Spain.

bilbo0s 7y ago

Well, that's a good point. If you don't have the tests, you don't have the tests. I get that. But then just say, "Sorry guys, we can only test critical cases and emergency personnel right now because we don't have the tests." What's concerning is that it's possible to reach a point where a person presenting with pneumonia, is not a critical case.

vladvasiliu 7y ago
For me it's been pretty clear that governments in many countries have been caught unprepared. Does it really surprise many people that often governments are wont to downplay such situations? It's pretty much the same story with the masks, which is a political scandal in France at the moment.

rmetzler 7y ago

Germany does the same. I’m under the impression that there is a big selection bias because I know a lot of friends who have symptoms but can’t get testing because they don’t fit the criteria. And the criteria is having contact with a known corona patient or traveled to a risk area.

maxerickson 7y ago
~90% of tests administered with restrictive criteria come back negative. There's a lot of other infections out there. I don't say that to diminish the importance of testing, my point is that the anecdotes aren't necessarily very informative.
- rmetzler 7y ago
  Do you have a source for that number? I'm asking, because I somewhat feel like this number is supportive of my assumption that they test the wrong people. I understand that the symptoms are pretty ordinary and there are a lot of pathogens which could cause it. And you're right, all I have are anecdotes. My own cough is still going on for almost two weeks now. I'm pretty sure that I got it from a coughing man on my commuting train. Four days later I had a sore throat and on the fifth day I had this cough. If this person was tested, and was positive, there's no chance they could find me.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    https://covidtracking.com/data/ https://covidtracking.com/data/ I wouldn't double down on an exact number, but it's clear enough that there are lots of negative tests happening in the US.
  - acqq 7y ago
    Across the world: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_testing
JBlue42 7y ago
In terms of 'symptoms', in the US they've kept it very basic with three listed: 1) fever 2) cough 3) shortness of breath. They seem very generic to me and probably result in a lot of unnecessary panicked phone calls. From the actual descriptions of patients that have gone through it and been hospitalized, there are much worse symptoms, and maybe they should be addressed more immediately. The main one I've come across is the heavy chest pressure. I don't understand why, in the US at least, there isn't more specific messaging so that we can make sure people with more severe or COVID-19-related symptoms have the ability to get through. Not to mention the BS here of having to 'call your doctor' first before getting seen. There are a lot of people out there now without primary care doctors or that can't afford a visit. There have been no federal instructions on how we would get waivers for visits, testing, and possible hospitalization. If you've ever had to fight with medical billing in the US, it's frustrating and will be even more so after all this dies down. On a side-note: I was turned away from donating blood yesterday because I admitted to having a runny nose and a bit drainage that caused some coughing. I have seasonal allergies - it's March, it's been raining and plants are blooming, etc. I understand the caution but I had no fever (tested at 36.6 C / 97.8 F), which is about the same temp I've had for the past week (I've tested that and my blood pressure daily, just in case). I was a bit frustrated, because I really wanted to do something immediate to give back but so be it. While walking home, it did make me wonder why they even bother taking 'healthy' people who could be asymptomatic if it's such a concern. They admitted to having no way to test the blood. I think there's a lot that needs to be fixed and I hope that this crisis will provide a better future for us all. Epidemics aren't going to go away. We can learn and plan better.

js2 7y ago

The U.S. likes to think of itself as the world leader. We should hold ourselves to that standard. "Other countries" such as South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan were conducting widespread testing while the U.S. was and still is not. More importantly, the U.S. could and should have provided global leadership as it did for the 2014 Ebola outbreak.

capableweb 7y ago
> The U.S. likes to think of itself as the world leader. Yeah, we in the rest of the world is very aware of that and frankly a bit tired of it. But my grief about that is nowhere as big as South American or countries in the middle east. > the U.S. could and should have provided global leadership Realistically, I don't don't think the US would be able to provide global leadership. Your leaders were denying that this outbreak was even real and the person responsible for the containment is a person who believes prayers can actually solve things. So I don't think anyone is expecting the US to have any real play on the world scene today.
- js2 7y ago
  When I wrote "could and should have provided global leadership," I was referring to an alternate reality where my country elected Hillary Clinton.
  - capableweb 7y ago
    When I wrote "we in the rest of the world is very aware of that and frankly a bit tired of it" I wasn't referring to any particular person, could be Trump, could be Clinton or could be Obama. No one except the US wants the US to keep playing world police/leader. This is the time to work together, not for one country to be the leader.
    - js2 7y ago
      I want the U.S to be the best global partner it can in fighting this pandemic and that’s impossible under its current leadership. Leadership doesn't mean telling the rest of the world what to do or being its cop. Leadership means the sorts of things outlined here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/opinion/coronavirus-mcchrystal-leadership.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/23/opinion/coronavirus-mcchr... > This is the time to work together, Agreed. Best of luck in Spain.