4 ms·

Yeah I'm in an Asian country and a lot of people I know think they had it two months ago. For anyone watching government reactions from January, it's clear tha

Yeah I'm in an Asian country and a lot of people I know think they had it two months ago. For anyone watching government reactions from January, it's clear that testing was not thorough in any meaningful way in Asian nations for at least 3 months after the outbreak began in Wuhan, including truly minimal screening at airports over those months. In other words there's an order of magnitude greater undiagnosed cases out there than reported, and I believe that fact is so clear that it should be part of mainstream coverage.

MobileVet 7y ago
The exception being South Korea. They have been demonstrating an optimal response to this pandemic. Test everyone as fast as possible, isolate those who are positive.
- not_a_moth 7y ago
  No, I'm talking about the literal months before the first case was even announced in SK.
- Ntrails 7y ago
  That assumes that in 100 years optimality of response will be defined as fewest possible deaths in this outbreak? (I am not saying that is not going to be true, but if the virus doesn't get effectively eradicated then it may well not end up being so? Not An Expert At All, just spitballing)
  - throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
    What else might 'optimal' be?
    - jakear 7y ago
      I think GP is saying that SK might be trading short term death rate for long term death rate.
      - Symmetry 7y ago
        Under what circumstances would you expect an infection in the future to be more likely to cause death than an infection right now? Maybe some fad treatment will be embraced by everybody that does more harm than good? Maybe the world economy will collapse and nobody will be able to manufacture ventilators any more? Any scenario I come up with seem very implausible compared to the idea that as we learn more about the virus our ability to treat it will improve.
  - MobileVet 7y ago
    I would say that 'optimal' can loosely be defined as 'minimal negative impact to society.' They are showing that a virus can be contained if dealt with quickly and in a coordinated fashion. This results in fewer people getting ill (and dying) as well as minimizing economic impact.
xbmcuser 7y ago
Will truly only find out when random antibody tests are done in the population. I personally doubt it was already widely spread before as otherwise 1. the number of people dying from respiratory problems would have spiked up specially among the older population 2. The number of people each infected person infects that he knows points to the virus not having passed through the population before
baq 7y ago
this would be great news as it would considerably blunt future waves of the disease after lockdowns are lifted.

MobileVet 7y ago

The exception being South Korea. They have been demonstrating an optimal response to this pandemic. Test everyone as fast as possible, isolate those who are positive.

not_a_moth 7y ago
No, I'm talking about the literal months before the first case was even announced in SK.
Ntrails 7y ago
That assumes that in 100 years optimality of response will be defined as fewest possible deaths in this outbreak? (I am not saying that is not going to be true, but if the virus doesn't get effectively eradicated then it may well not end up being so? Not An Expert At All, just spitballing)
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago
  What else might 'optimal' be?
  - jakear 7y ago
    I think GP is saying that SK might be trading short term death rate for long term death rate.
    - Symmetry 7y ago
      Under what circumstances would you expect an infection in the future to be more likely to cause death than an infection right now? Maybe some fad treatment will be embraced by everybody that does more harm than good? Maybe the world economy will collapse and nobody will be able to manufacture ventilators any more? Any scenario I come up with seem very implausible compared to the idea that as we learn more about the virus our ability to treat it will improve.
- MobileVet 7y ago
  I would say that 'optimal' can loosely be defined as 'minimal negative impact to society.' They are showing that a virus can be contained if dealt with quickly and in a coordinated fashion. This results in fewer people getting ill (and dying) as well as minimizing economic impact.

xbmcuser 7y ago

Will truly only find out when random antibody tests are done in the population. I personally doubt it was already widely spread before as otherwise 1. the number of people dying from respiratory problems would have spiked up specially among the older population 2. The number of people each infected person infects that he knows points to the virus not having passed through the population before

baq 7y ago

this would be great news as it would considerably blunt future waves of the disease after lockdowns are lifted.