3 ms·

Santa Clara county did surveillance testing which likely saved California https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/6

Santa Clara county did surveillance testing which likely saved California https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6914e3.htm despite the shortage of test kits. Just imagine if the nation had sufficient tests available.

vanattab 7y ago
"During March 5–14, among patients with respiratory symptoms evaluated at one of four Santa Clara County urgent care centers serving as sentinel surveillance sites, 23% had positive test results for influenza. Among a subset of patients with negative test results for influenza, 11% had positive test results for COVID-19." Seems to me like Santa Clara was just testing sink people to me
- maxerickson 7y ago
  It continues: At the time the investigation began, testing guidance recommended focusing on persons with clinical findings of lower respiratory illness and travel to an affected area or an epidemiologic link to a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case, or on persons hospitalized for severe respiratory disease and no alternative diagnosis (1). At the time, the standard was to test people with travel history to affected areas or when they were hospitalized for unexplained respiratory illness. Compare that to testing people that went to urgent care because they felt sick. There's a difference.
  - ssalka 7y ago
    Still, there's no reason to say that any of these selection criteria result in sample sizes big enough to be statistically relevant against larger populations. Also, testing "people with travel history to affected areas" does not amount at all to being a representative segment. Santa Clara's results are basically only useful for Santa Clara. _Maybe_ the Bay Area in addition, but not really any farther. So, we DO need surveillance testing, on a much wider scale, across the US and globally to be frank.
    - maxerickson 7y ago
      The poster up thread is claiming that the surveillance testing in Santa Clara lead California to act as if there was community transmission. That's super useful information when most testing is using restrictive criteria like travel to affected areas. They aren't arguing that it was enough, they are pointing at it as an example of what broader testing can help do, if only it existed. So I don't really understand your refutational tone ("Still", "relevant", "only useful", "DO", etc). Is one of us misunderstanding the flow of the thread?
    - blaser-waffle 7y ago
      You are getting downvoted because you're arguing for global surveillance, which is not a popular topic on this board. And that doesn't include some real fears of actual dictator-ish moves, with COVID as a justification.
      - ferzul 7y ago
        i'm not scared that hungary might use covid-19 as a justification to abandon democracy in exchange for dictatorship. i see they did. an observation is a terrible thing.
- stubish 7y ago
  Test a group known to be 10x more likely get infected and you can get meaningful results with a much smaller sample size. 'sentinel surveillance sites' to try and catch the wave before it sweeps through the general population.
- fspeech 7y ago
  Testing people without symptoms would likely result in getting nothing given the limited sample size. The point is that the sampling was done with less bias, without the preconceived notion of who may actually have it (at least among fever patients).

vanattab 7y ago

"During March 5–14, among patients with respiratory symptoms evaluated at one of four Santa Clara County urgent care centers serving as sentinel surveillance sites, 23% had positive test results for influenza. Among a subset of patients with negative test results for influenza, 11% had positive test results for COVID-19." Seems to me like Santa Clara was just testing sink people to me

maxerickson 7y ago
It continues: At the time the investigation began, testing guidance recommended focusing on persons with clinical findings of lower respiratory illness and travel to an affected area or an epidemiologic link to a laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 case, or on persons hospitalized for severe respiratory disease and no alternative diagnosis (1). At the time, the standard was to test people with travel history to affected areas or when they were hospitalized for unexplained respiratory illness. Compare that to testing people that went to urgent care because they felt sick. There's a difference.
- ssalka 7y ago
  Still, there's no reason to say that any of these selection criteria result in sample sizes big enough to be statistically relevant against larger populations. Also, testing "people with travel history to affected areas" does not amount at all to being a representative segment. Santa Clara's results are basically only useful for Santa Clara. _Maybe_ the Bay Area in addition, but not really any farther. So, we DO need surveillance testing, on a much wider scale, across the US and globally to be frank.
  - maxerickson 7y ago
    The poster up thread is claiming that the surveillance testing in Santa Clara lead California to act as if there was community transmission. That's super useful information when most testing is using restrictive criteria like travel to affected areas. They aren't arguing that it was enough, they are pointing at it as an example of what broader testing can help do, if only it existed. So I don't really understand your refutational tone ("Still", "relevant", "only useful", "DO", etc). Is one of us misunderstanding the flow of the thread?
  - blaser-waffle 7y ago
    You are getting downvoted because you're arguing for global surveillance, which is not a popular topic on this board. And that doesn't include some real fears of actual dictator-ish moves, with COVID as a justification.
    - ferzul 7y ago
      i'm not scared that hungary might use covid-19 as a justification to abandon democracy in exchange for dictatorship. i see they did. an observation is a terrible thing.
stubish 7y ago
Test a group known to be 10x more likely get infected and you can get meaningful results with a much smaller sample size. 'sentinel surveillance sites' to try and catch the wave before it sweeps through the general population.
fspeech 7y ago
Testing people without symptoms would likely result in getting nothing given the limited sample size. The point is that the sampling was done with less bias, without the preconceived notion of who may actually have it (at least among fever patients).