5 ms·

I thought I remembered reading early on that icelandic testing was showing that 50% of all people infected there showed no symptoms. Then add on how many people

I thought I remembered reading early on that icelandic testing was showing that 50% of all people infected there showed no symptoms. Then add on how many people show symptoms but its not severe enough to get tested.

StevePerkins 6y ago
Well, then add on the number of people who just don't get a test regardless. My child had a fever a few weeks ago, it was an ORDEAL finding a place to get him tested. You have to be quite motivated. If you're not sick enough to require hospitalization, and especially if you're un-insured and poor and don't want to pay a couple-hundred bucks out of pocket, then you'll probably just ride it out and never get tested. I'm sure this is the state of things for tens of millions of Americans.
- learc83 6y ago
  >My child had a fever a few weeks ago, it was an ORDEAL finding a place to get him tested. You have to be quite motivated. That's because the test won't change anything. If it's positive, they'll tell you to isolate your kid. If it's negative, there's a high enough false negative rate that you'll still need to basically treat them like they have COVID (stay home and isolate).
  - AstralStorm 6y ago
    Incorrect. Not being treated early is likely a main factor between likelihood of medium to severe.vs no to mild symptoms, beyond immunity. And isolation of sick patient from viral reservoir (such as fomites and other asymptomatic sick) is known to be important too, as it changes the viral inoculum dose.
    - learc83 6y ago
      Normal healthy children who don't develop a severe case aren't treated at all, so talking about early treatment is irrelevant. I literally just talked about this with a close family member who is a Children's ER doctor. >And isolation of sick patient from viral reservoir (such as fomites and other asymptomatic sick) is known to be important too, as it changes the viral inoculum dose. This isn't known to be important. If a person has been infected long enough that they are already symptomatic then "viral inoculum dose" is irrelevant.
war1025 6y ago
> Then add on how many people show symptoms but its not severe enough to get tested. Earlier this week we took my son in because: 1. Our neighbors have recently recovered from Coronavirus 2. Our son had a cold / fever around the same time lasting several days 3. He had several days of diarrhea after the cold symptoms subsided I talked to my coworker whose wife is a doctor and he relayed the symptoms to her and she said it very well could be a mild coronavirus infection. We weren't concerned for his health because he's handled it just fine, but we figured it would be good to know in terms of avoiding spreading it to other people. So we called and set up an appointment. They got us in like an hour and half after we called. Got there and the doctor said, "Nope, no need for a test." At this point I'm extremely skeptical that the number counts are in any way accurate. Also I've lost faith in the "we're not doing enough testing" argument since we went and tried to get tested and they turned us away.
- watwut 6y ago
  > Also I've lost faith in the "we're not doing enough testing" argument since we went and tried to get tested and they turned us away. That does not imply that there is enough testing. That just implies that your doctor or health care system is unwilling to test someone in your circumstances. "Not doing enough testing" is not referring to just test kids not being available, it is also referring to health system policies and willingness/unwilingness to test people.
  - war1025 6y ago
    I guess to clarify, it has been my impression that the healthcare industry are the people telling us we are not doing enough testing. We attempted to get tested and they said no, not worth the bother. That seems contradictory to me.
    - learc83 6y ago
      It depends on where you are. If you have a low enough case count and a well functioning health department that is doing contact tracing, then it's helpful to confirm that your kid is positive. If you're in an area where neither of those things apply then, for a child a test isn't going to change anything. It's not going to change their treatment. If it's positive they'll tell you to isolate, but if it's negative, there's a high enough false negative rate, and there are enough cases that it's still very likely they have it, so you'll still want to treat it like they do.

StevePerkins 6y ago

Well, then add on the number of people who just don't get a test regardless. My child had a fever a few weeks ago, it was an ORDEAL finding a place to get him tested. You have to be quite motivated. If you're not sick enough to require hospitalization, and especially if you're un-insured and poor and don't want to pay a couple-hundred bucks out of pocket, then you'll probably just ride it out and never get tested. I'm sure this is the state of things for tens of millions of Americans.

learc83 6y ago
>My child had a fever a few weeks ago, it was an ORDEAL finding a place to get him tested. You have to be quite motivated. That's because the test won't change anything. If it's positive, they'll tell you to isolate your kid. If it's negative, there's a high enough false negative rate that you'll still need to basically treat them like they have COVID (stay home and isolate).
- AstralStorm 6y ago
  Incorrect. Not being treated early is likely a main factor between likelihood of medium to severe.vs no to mild symptoms, beyond immunity. And isolation of sick patient from viral reservoir (such as fomites and other asymptomatic sick) is known to be important too, as it changes the viral inoculum dose.
  - learc83 6y ago
    Normal healthy children who don't develop a severe case aren't treated at all, so talking about early treatment is irrelevant. I literally just talked about this with a close family member who is a Children's ER doctor. >And isolation of sick patient from viral reservoir (such as fomites and other asymptomatic sick) is known to be important too, as it changes the viral inoculum dose. This isn't known to be important. If a person has been infected long enough that they are already symptomatic then "viral inoculum dose" is irrelevant.

war1025 6y ago

> Then add on how many people show symptoms but its not severe enough to get tested. Earlier this week we took my son in because: 1. Our neighbors have recently recovered from Coronavirus 2. Our son had a cold / fever around the same time lasting several days 3. He had several days of diarrhea after the cold symptoms subsided I talked to my coworker whose wife is a doctor and he relayed the symptoms to her and she said it very well could be a mild coronavirus infection. We weren't concerned for his health because he's handled it just fine, but we figured it would be good to know in terms of avoiding spreading it to other people. So we called and set up an appointment. They got us in like an hour and half after we called. Got there and the doctor said, "Nope, no need for a test." At this point I'm extremely skeptical that the number counts are in any way accurate. Also I've lost faith in the "we're not doing enough testing" argument since we went and tried to get tested and they turned us away.

watwut 6y ago
> Also I've lost faith in the "we're not doing enough testing" argument since we went and tried to get tested and they turned us away. That does not imply that there is enough testing. That just implies that your doctor or health care system is unwilling to test someone in your circumstances. "Not doing enough testing" is not referring to just test kids not being available, it is also referring to health system policies and willingness/unwilingness to test people.
- war1025 6y ago
  I guess to clarify, it has been my impression that the healthcare industry are the people telling us we are not doing enough testing. We attempted to get tested and they said no, not worth the bother. That seems contradictory to me.
  - learc83 6y ago
    It depends on where you are. If you have a low enough case count and a well functioning health department that is doing contact tracing, then it's helpful to confirm that your kid is positive. If you're in an area where neither of those things apply then, for a child a test isn't going to change anything. It's not going to change their treatment. If it's positive they'll tell you to isolate, but if it's negative, there's a high enough false negative rate, and there are enough cases that it's still very likely they have it, so you'll still want to treat it like they do.