4 ms·

The pre symptomatic time wouldn’t be part of this gap unless the infected person got a test before symptom onset, which I believe is rare (most people who test

by jupp0r 6y ago

The pre symptomatic time wouldn’t be part of this gap unless the infected person got a test before symptom onset, which I believe is rare (most people who test positive get tested after they develop symptoms)

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
No, these measures affect new cases, not the already ill - so you've got to build in those 2 weeks to display symptoms for those people who would or wouldn't now be infected.
- jupp0r 6y ago
  It’s new cases. Those are people that have tested positive. This usually happens days after the actual time they have been infected. At the time of infection, you’d test negative because it takes time for viral replication to increase viral load to levels that are over thresholds used in the PCR testing process.
  - SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
    But we're not talking testing negative, are we? We're talking those people showing up in the system (the > 2 week lag in time it takes to change course), or did I miss a level of questioning that threw this off course?
    - jupp0r 6y ago
      The original question was what the delay between “new cases” and “new deaths” charts was.
emn13 6y ago
If you look at the graphs side-by side for areas with clearly defined peaks (I looked at MA, NY, Italy, Spain, UK, Netherlands) the peak fatality rate is no more than a week behind peak case numbers, and perhaps less. Testing rates in at least some of those areas were fairly constant around the peaks, so that doesn't seem a likely confounding factor. I'm not sure what to make of the meaning of such a short gap, and of course people may now be testing earlier than they did in the early hot spots, so I'm not sure if this has any predictive value.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Testing in the beginning lagged significantly from the initial infection.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  One caution about those numbers; many/most sites show cases based on the day that reporting was received and aggregated, _not_ on the day it was taken. This doesn't matter very much now, as turnaround on tests in most places is quick. But a couple of months ago delays of weeks were common.
rsynnott 6y ago
People are far more likely to be tested before symptoms today than a few months ago; at least in Ireland when a case is detected everyone they've had contact with is tested, and some of those will be pre-symptomatic positives. And then anyone _they've_ had contact with will be tested and so on.

by jupp0r 6y ago

SketchySeaBeast 6y ago

No, these measures affect new cases, not the already ill - so you've got to build in those 2 weeks to display symptoms for those people who would or wouldn't now be infected.

jupp0r 6y ago
It’s new cases. Those are people that have tested positive. This usually happens days after the actual time they have been infected. At the time of infection, you’d test negative because it takes time for viral replication to increase viral load to levels that are over thresholds used in the PCR testing process.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y ago
  But we're not talking testing negative, are we? We're talking those people showing up in the system (the > 2 week lag in time it takes to change course), or did I miss a level of questioning that threw this off course?
  - jupp0r 6y ago
    The original question was what the delay between “new cases” and “new deaths” charts was.

emn13 6y ago

If you look at the graphs side-by side for areas with clearly defined peaks (I looked at MA, NY, Italy, Spain, UK, Netherlands) the peak fatality rate is no more than a week behind peak case numbers, and perhaps less. Testing rates in at least some of those areas were fairly constant around the peaks, so that doesn't seem a likely confounding factor. I'm not sure what to make of the meaning of such a short gap, and of course people may now be testing earlier than they did in the early hot spots, so I'm not sure if this has any predictive value.

heavyset_go 6y ago
Testing in the beginning lagged significantly from the initial infection.
rsynnott 6y ago
One caution about those numbers; many/most sites show cases based on the day that reporting was received and aggregated, _not_ on the day it was taken. This doesn't matter very much now, as turnaround on tests in most places is quick. But a couple of months ago delays of weeks were common.

rsynnott 6y ago

People are far more likely to be tested before symptoms today than a few months ago; at least in Ireland when a case is detected everyone they've had contact with is tested, and some of those will be pre-symptomatic positives. And then anyone _they've_ had contact with will be tested and so on.