3 ms·

This seems to ignore the importance of testing symptomatic people to rule out COVID (the most common outcome) so care givers can stop wasting PPE (which is is s

by lokar 7y ago

This seems to ignore the importance of testing symptomatic people to rule out COVID (the most common outcome) so care givers can stop wasting PPE (which is is short supply).

raldi 7y ago
Non-covid diseases still require the use of PPE. Also, PPE is much easier to produce than tests.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > Non-covid diseases still require the use of PPE. The PPE required for some COVID-19 symptoms in the absence of clear indication of a droplet/airborne transmissible condition are different than for COVID-19. You don't usually use droplet, much less airborne, protections for every patient presenting with a fever, or GI symptoms, or several of the other ways COVID-19 can present, but you must with the prevalence of COVID-19 until you can rule it out. And it's even more critical to identify COVID-19 or it's absence in sick patients when part of your containment strategy involves segregating ftreatment facilities (part of the capacity surge has been in establishing either new COVID-19 specific facilities or new facilities to handle non-COVID-19 cases while existing capacity is dedicated to COVID-19.)
greendave 7y ago
That works up to a point, but test accuracy makes it risky to be too definitive in interpreting the results. For example the Abbott test appears to have a 15% false negative rate[1]. That's potentially a lot of infectious people who would incorrectly be ruled out. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/21/838794281/study-raises-questions-about-false-negatives-from-quick-covid-19-test https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/21/8387942...
empath75 7y ago
During a pandemic, it's more likely than not that any negative test on a symptomatic person is false. It's also quite likely that a positive test on an asymptomatic person is also false -- depending on how prevalent it is in the general population.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > During a pandemic, it's more likely than not that any negative test on a symptomatic person is false. I don't think we've reached the point where COVID-19 is the leading cause of fever, much less GI symptoms, so unless you define “symptomatic” extremely narrowly (like, “in need of a ventilator”) that's probably not true in this pandemic at this time in the US.
- Marsymars 7y ago
  > During a pandemic, it's more likely than not that any negative test on a symptomatic person is false. There are places with single-digit positive test rates, that would require a 90%+ false negative rate, which, as far as we know, is not the case.

by lokar 7y ago

This seems to ignore the importance of testing symptomatic people to rule out COVID (the most common outcome) so care givers can stop wasting PPE (which is is short supply).

raldi 7y ago

Non-covid diseases still require the use of PPE. Also, PPE is much easier to produce than tests.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> Non-covid diseases still require the use of PPE. The PPE required for some COVID-19 symptoms in the absence of clear indication of a droplet/airborne transmissible condition are different than for COVID-19. You don't usually use droplet, much less airborne, protections for every patient presenting with a fever, or GI symptoms, or several of the other ways COVID-19 can present, but you must with the prevalence of COVID-19 until you can rule it out. And it's even more critical to identify COVID-19 or it's absence in sick patients when part of your containment strategy involves segregating ftreatment facilities (part of the capacity surge has been in establishing either new COVID-19 specific facilities or new facilities to handle non-COVID-19 cases while existing capacity is dedicated to COVID-19.)

greendave 7y ago

That works up to a point, but test accuracy makes it risky to be too definitive in interpreting the results. For example the Abbott test appears to have a 15% false negative rate[1]. That's potentially a lot of infectious people who would incorrectly be ruled out. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/21/838794281/study-raises-questions-about-false-negatives-from-quick-covid-19-test https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/04/21/8387942...

empath75 7y ago

During a pandemic, it's more likely than not that any negative test on a symptomatic person is false. It's also quite likely that a positive test on an asymptomatic person is also false -- depending on how prevalent it is in the general population.

dragonwriter 7y ago
> During a pandemic, it's more likely than not that any negative test on a symptomatic person is false. I don't think we've reached the point where COVID-19 is the leading cause of fever, much less GI symptoms, so unless you define “symptomatic” extremely narrowly (like, “in need of a ventilator”) that's probably not true in this pandemic at this time in the US.
Marsymars 7y ago
> During a pandemic, it's more likely than not that any negative test on a symptomatic person is false. There are places with single-digit positive test rates, that would require a 90%+ false negative rate, which, as far as we know, is not the case.