Twitter Link
Printable View
Same. Except for the long lines and tiny cramped rooms. My polling location is a 300-person hall in a retirement community center. There were two others there when I voted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Why don't you believe my claim that testing has only just started?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
The facts are out there. The CDC were putting on their own website that 472 total tests had been done in the USA. NYC Mayor's Office has just Tweeted out they've done their "first day of testing".
Its reasonable to expect a country to be able to scale to test thousands of people rather than tens or no people. We're testing thousands a day at the peak of testing while at the same time your CDC figures were going up in the tens not thousands.
Mostly because I asked for a source and you gave me an image showing that they stopped reporting the number of reported presumptive positive cases that have been tested as negative. Since it contained testing data from 2 days ago, it also contradicted your assertion that today was the first day of testing.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
472 tests that have been reported to the CDC and were presumed positive prior to the test. The CDC does not personally administer every test, and they stopped displaying the numbers because of the number of facilities that were only reporting negative tests to their state government or not at all. Reporting to the CDC is not required for every psychosomatic case.Quote:
The facts are out there. The CDC were putting on their own website that 472 total tests had been done in the USA.
No the image shows the stopped reporting the total number of tests which they had been doing, and the total deaths.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESH0dcpW...g&name=900x900
I also quoted an NYC Tweet showing they were now doing the "first day" of testing.
Twitter Link
The wording in that tweet is fairly ambiguous. I read it as it being the first day of testing for the New York City Public Health Laboratory.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
We are capable of testing over a thousand tests per day. CDC can currently do 350 per day: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-nCoV/summary.html
And they are hoping other tests will be available "soon".
Caught with their pantsdown. Lucky, bloody lucky, this virus didn't hit America first instead of Italy. It could just as easily have been America first.
It says yesterday someone was tested positive. Where are you getting that today was the first day of testing? (edit: ah, I see: it says yesterday was the first day of testing at that lab) And please read your first image more closely - pay special attention to the very first thing said. They're only reporting the tests that have been reported to them about people who have been "presumed positive", or in other words, people who have a reasonable suspicion of being infected. Less than 1/20 of those presumed positive were actually positive, which suggests some level of aggressiveness to the standard of who is presumed positive.
Indeed that's what I was saying, NYC is just starting now. And the CDC before now were insisting on doing the tests themselves and had done 472 total. Its a pathetic amount, you should have done tens of thousands of tests by now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
You're mixing up 2 separate points. The NYC Mayor says NYC is doing its first day of testing (because NYC has no foreign travel to China right!?) while the CDC were saying total tests of 472 but have now stopped saying how many total tests have been done.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
You're freaking out because the CDC hasn't had to run many confirmation tests, and because a new lab just started running tests in a place where there is no known uncontrolled outbreak? Maybe they haven't been testing aggressively enough, but could we at least wait for some evidence?
SourceQuote:
CDC’s numbers are not representative all of testing being done nationwide.
You're looking for reasons to panic. It's not helpful. AFAIK the number of uncontained outbreaks in the US still stands at 1, and that one hasn't really even been confirmed yet.
edit: Searched after I posted, and it looks like we're on the edge of getting an official confirmation that the outbreak in Seattle is no longer contained.
I think Wraith has already addressed this, but just in case - there are likely many labs in NYC, and labs in the surrounding areas that have performed testing for people living in NYC. The wording indicates to me that this was the first day of testing at a particular lab, not at *any* lab serving NYC.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If that was Tweeted by a lab it would make sense. It was Tweeted by the Mayor of NYC.Quote:
Originally Posted by Enoch the Red
If the Mayor of NYC uses the phrase "our first day of testing" but didn't mean it he should maybe be clearer about it?
You snipped that. It actually saysQuote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
So they're now not doing that. Until 2 days ago they were doing that and the total was 472.Quote:
† CDC is no longer reporting the number of persons under investigation (PUIs) that have been tested, as well as PUIs that have tested negative. Now that states are testing and reporting their own results, CDC’s numbers are not representative all of testing being done nationwide.
Because it's the city's lab, owned by the city.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
They were never representative. They stopped reporting it because they weren't getting all negative results reported to them, and probably because they didn't want to cause panic with the sudden giant uptick in tests now that it's loose. Do you not even see the contradiction with your belief that all tests in the country are done by the CDC and your belief that the only tests run in New York were by that city government owned lab?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
This whole discussion is asinine, but per Alex Azar two days, ago, over 3,600 people had been tested nationwide (Source). The ~500 number was tests confirmed by the CDC. It sounds like testing will ramp up quickly this week; we're likely to see a huge increase in the number of confirmed infections because of the large increase in testing.
I don't know enough about public health policy or the details of this test development to determine whether the US' policy in this regard was wise. I suspect it was probably slower than it should have been to roll out mass testing, and that containment efforts are inadequate. That being said, it doesn't really seem like more aggressive containment is working very well unless you go really extreme, so I question whether this is a fight worth having. Given the epidemiology of this disease (at least preliminary information), it is likely to be exceedingly hard to successfully contain the disease. I suspect it's just going to become another seasonal coronavirus that circulates in the general population. If the final mortality statistics are high enough, we might see efforts at mass vaccination next year, but I personally question how effective they're likely to be.
I believe each coronavirus outbreak has been from the virus jumping from a different animal to humans. Unless this one become an endemic, I don't see a vaccination program being effective.
I heard a blurb on NPR about the testing kits. I think they only started shipping them around the country this week, iirc. Before that, samples had to be shipped to Atlanta, tested by CDC directly. I guess I could look up the details, but don't have time/ interest rn. I would think at a minimum there should be a central facility in each big state/ major city, where testing is done, should have been set up at least a month ago...Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Why is this a point of argument, anyway? I think we can all agree the US government fucked the dog on this, probably is still fucking the dog. It's what happens when you embrace incompetence and propaganda as a form of government, instead of, you know, knowledge, skill and integrity.
Is it about whether we should panic or not? Don't Panic. Should I be buying canned food? A morbid thought occurred to me - this disease has the potential to fix the boomer demographic problem we're facing.... :( I've got two 80-something parents I'm genuinely afraid for.
Fucking wet markets. The report I heard was bats were living near/above where pig carcasses were being displayed/ sold. Some of the pig carcasses were getting shit on, virus loaded shit, and people handling the carcasses contracted the disease. Seems pretty damn preventable with some basic public health practices... yeah, I know, it's a cultural thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
No, it won't. Boomers aren't that old.
If anything the disease has the potential to ensure many boomers come into an earlier inheritance. Its the boomers parents that are at risk, what gets called the Silent Generation and almost never spoken about.
Yeah, my parents.... I'm not technically a boomer, but 3 of my older siblings are.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Sometimes the transition between generations can be weird or blurry.
I'm technically a Millenial (born 1982) but when people use the term Millenial I don't feel like it applies to me, I feel like it applies to people younger than me.
last report I saw the virus is killing people in their sixties at the same rate that it's killing people in their 80s
Boomers...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
80 is a bit over boomer status but before Seattle the oldest victim I read about was 89. Wraith mentioned nursing home I don't know if those victims were older or not
I'm not saying that we can prevent other coronaviruses from causing outbreaks, but one could imagine that an effective vaccination program might blunt the effects of the current covid-19 virus. There are already a number of coronaviruses that circulate in the global population (generally seasonally); the only reason people might push for a vaccine is if the mortality is high enough and it's a stable enough disease to target. Otherwise we'll just have one more virus to add to the list.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
It's not really clear that this is the source. There's other data that direct bat-to-human transmission is possible, and bats have many viruses living in them at any given time. It's very easy to make big pronouncements but frankly we don't have adequate data to know how it got introduced (or whether it was circulating in Hubei for a while before breaking out).Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
Chaloobi I believe you're bat-shit crazy
Not what I've seen. Reports I saw said that worldwide there was a major uptake in mortality in later decades and that those in their 80s were dramatically more likely to die than in their 60s. I think the report I saw said something like 0.4% mortality under 40, ~1% at 60 and ~15% mortality at 80.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Best evidence for the severity of this is probably Diamond Princess since its the only one that will have caught all asymptomatic exposure.
No you don't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
I thought it was pretty clear the first 40 or so patients had that same market in common. The guano / pig connection is probably speculation, a sort of fill in the blank reasoning.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Are these numbers including the China death rates? I'm not going to trust anything that does.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Not true. The first patient identified had no connection to the market, and about 1/3 of the first 40 didn't either. Certainly the market is important - 2/3 of the first cohort and 1/2 of the second cohort suggests it's an important link. And it's highly likely the disease is zoonotic in origin. But it's not clear (a) the first transmission to humans happened at the market, or (b) it required an intermediary animal to pass to humans. It's a reasonable hypothesis but the data is far from clear.Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
This is basically the plot of Season 1 of The Expanse.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Guano you are but what am I :downcast:Quote:
Originally Posted by EyeKhan
USA #1! :rolleyes: Whoever said this is a testing problem is right, and we're doing a crap job. First the criteria was off, then not enough test kits were circulated to doctors/hospitals. This could have been addressed in January....but Trump's admin. disbanded the federal global health response team, so it's an organizational failure.
Taking time off work isn't always an option, esp. for hourly workers who live paycheck-to-paycheck -- they don't have paid sick time or health insurance but still have to pay rent. And working from home isn't possible for the attendants and caretakers in nursing homes. OR staff on cruise ships. :(
The virus will spread. Just how much and who needs to be hospitalized (or dies) depends on how fast they ramp up the testing. This is Trump's CDC, and Pence's pet project....:eek:
Anyone with a medical problem is at higher risk, not just the elderly. Something like half (maybe it's 40%?) of all Americans have at least one pre-existing condition (like asthma, heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc.) that put them in a higher risk group.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
To answer Lewk's recent question about what literally any other president and admin would've done better than Trump, it's fair to say they wouldn't have lied this much:
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ESS9hwTX...ng&name=medium
I did say rate and I do want to correct that. What I read had total deaths, not percentages from infected, and the 60s were right up there with the 80s. Which is why I questioned the idea of an influx of inheritances. but that report was a week or two than that graph.
Trump denies official coronavirus death rate based on his 'hunch' and suggests people with deadly virus can go to work
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9376756.html
A hunch, we have a literal Lewk in the white house