Posted on 03/08/2020 6:00:55 PM PDT by narses
We are now just beginning to test...
Why were we not testing a month ago? If we had, then containment might have been far more effective.
IMHO we are just at the starting point...
Go to this site https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries
for updated nubmers and you will see that no one, repeat no one under the age of 10 worldwide has died. That is because the virus is mild compared to SARS etc.
An example is some strains of Coxsackievirus, which isn’t generally even treated for children except with Tylenol and lasts about a week, but messes adults up for a couple of months. I know an athlete that caught it from a niece and got to the point of having to rest going up a flight of stairs (it is distantly related to polio, as I understand, but unlike polio seldom has permanent effects).
Why were we not testing a month ago?
The original design of the test kits wasn’t usable without special expertise. It had to be redesigned. Prior to that redesign, there were apparently only 12 labs that could effectively use the kits without giving an excessive number of false results.
Add that to Obama-era regulations which required non-CDC labs to get approval before even testing the kits they designed themselves - so not only the market, but even lab cooperation and innovations were effectively blocked.
It further didn’t help that China wouldn’t allow the CDC to go to China, and would not give viral samples to the US.
We had viral samples from the middle/end of January when the first patient presented in Washington state.
South Korea didn’t get samples any more quickly than we did.
Ditto Japan, Germany, and any other country that has had working tests for nearly a month longer than we did.
I believe 1 50 year old has passed and we don’t know if this person had any underlying health issues!!!
WHO had a test...Our CDC opted to not use it. WHY? Slow walked testing...Why?
Regs should have been peeled back a few weeks ago...Should have encouraged local and state health departments to use other screening.
Sorry CDC was dragging feet...but then so have a lot of other agencies...In the end CDC has a potential crisis on hands and a huge pot of money to use...$8.2B I believe.
I am not at all sure the CDC has been working to help Trump...But then many govt bureaucracies have not ...
Some were issuing clarion call over a month ago...They were mocked...
I'm not sure what data he's looking at. I've been recording in a spreadsheet the last data posted from Johns Hopkins each day since Jan 25.
Two of the columns I've been saving are automatic calculations of "new cases today" and "new deaths today". If you look at "new cases today" (worldwide) the last several days (starting 2-29), the numbers are 1801, 2090, 1863, 2224, 2265, 2957, 3806, 3973, and today at 3880.
The "new deaths for today" for the same days are 54, 70, 69, 81, 88, 97, 108, 103, and today at 231.
It's interesting (and sad for those affected) to watch and not as ugly as predicted, but I'm not sure how the numbers are considered decreasing.
man, you cant argue with a ‘true believer’. you are just feeding trolls here
L8r
Here’s a reference to the source for the “9-days” statement.
https://www.cnet.com/how-to/coronavirus-and-covid-19-everything-you-need-to-know/
How long can the coronavirus survive on surfaces?
There’s still a lot to learn about the hardiness of this particular virus, but similar members of the coronavirus family have been explored in detail, including the coronaviruses responsible for the SARS and MERS outbreaks.
Particularly notable is an article published on Feb. 6 in The Journal of Hospital Infection, which looked at a host of previous studies (22 in total) and found coronaviruses may persist on surfaces for up to nine days.
A chief concern for the public has been whether global package shipments could help spread the virus. Different materials can keep the virus alive for longer outside the body, but a range of factors needs to be taken into account when evaluating virus survival. The CDC is still investigating this but has come up with numbers for certain surfaces.
“On copper and steel it’s pretty typical, it’s pretty much about two hours,” Robert Redfield, director of the CDC, told US lawmakers on Feb. 27, according to a report by Reuters.
“But I will say on other surfaces — cardboard or plastic — it’s longer, and so we are looking at this.”
dont feed the trolls!
Yes, and even Wikipedia itself can be a fake news source when what’s being discussed are fast moving statistics with political implications.
We need to trust what true experts — at places like the NIH and CDC — are saying.
BTW,
I found this:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/04/health/coronavirus-test-what-happens-explainer/index.html
Also:
...
Even if that number were accurate, 1 million tests does not necessarily mean 1 million people tested. Labs are running two tests per patient, as ProPublica reporter Caroline Chen points out.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) created its own test for the novel coronavirus at the start of the outbreak. The agency was quickly able to start testing samples at its central lab in Atlanta. However, testing capacity stalled out when they tried to get testing kits out to local labs: one part of the test kits was contaminated, and the labs weren’t able to validate that they worked. The FDA did not give state labs permission to create their own test, instead of relying on the CDC’s, until February 29th.
In addition, until last week, the CDC only recommended testing for people who had either traveled to a country where the virus was spreading or who had been in contact with someone who had a confirmed case of COVID-19. That’s why, for example, two patients in Washington state were not diagnosed with COVID-19 until a week after their death.
...
Typically, there are few confirmed viral samples from patients at the outset, which researchers need to validate their tests, and CDC has the capability to grow the virus for this critical quality assurance step. Once the agency has a working test, that goes out to state labs. Then, in a third phase, commercial labs take over and either produce their own tests or scale-up the CDC one. “I would have hoped to see that third phase by now,” Borio says.
...
CDC finally started to send kits to state and local health labs on 5 February. But on 12 February, it revealed that several labs had difficulty validating the test because of a problem with one of the reagents.
The key problem with the kits is what’s known as a negative control, says Kelly Wroblewski, director of infectious diseases at the Association of Public Health Laboratories (APHL). CDC’s test uses the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) assay to find tiny amounts of the SARS-CoV-2 genome in, say, a nose swab. To make sure a test is working properly, kits also include DNA unrelated to SARS-CoV-2. The assay should not react to this negative control, but the CDC reagents did at many, but not all, state labs. The labs where the negative control failed were not allowed to use the test; they have to continue to send their samples to Atlanta.
...
In principle, many hospital and academic labs around the country have the capability to carry out tests themselves. The PCR reaction uses so-called primers, short stretches of DNA, to find viral sequences. The CDC website posts the primers used in its test, and WHO publicly catalogs other primers and protocols, too. Well-equipped state or local labs can use these—or come up with their own—to produce what are known as a “laboratory-developed tests” for in-house use.
But at the moment, they’re not allowed to do that without FDA approval. When the United States declared the outbreak a public health emergency on 31 January, a bureaucratic process kicked in that requires FDA’s “emergency use approval” for any tests. “The declaration of a public health emergency did exactly what it shouldn’t have. It limited the diagnostic capacity of this country,” Mina says. “It’s insane.”
On 24 February, APHL asked FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn for “enforcement discretion” to sidestep the emergency process and allow APHL members labs to use their own tests. On 26 February, Hahn replied that the CDC test could be modified to use just the primers that specifically detect SARS-CoV-2, essentially ignoring the faulty portion of the kits. FDA, in other words, would look the other way to make more widespread testing possible.
I am really too tired to read all this, but I will tomorrow.
Thank you for taking time to reply.
Freegards!
That’s not true. We’ve been testing for nearly a month...just shortly after Wuhan released their info on the virus. You have to have info to know how to test. Can’t make a test before hand
So you are wrong. We were testing a month ago. It is a matter of where the test could be read that limits the number of tests
You have been reading and believing to much SHTF stories. That and you aren’t even following the actual news from the CDC and the WH
Trump put travel restrictions in place Jan 31. That was a biggie.
Do you think Dr Tony Fauci and his group understands this virus as well as you do? This is the group that is estimating a 0.1% - 1.0% CFR using epidemiological modeling based on the most up to date scientific data they are privy to.
Absolutely. If you think it’s just about the price of gas at the pump you are extremely misinformed. It will affect every industry. Thousands of jobs will be lost.
Since when do off shoring production free trader H-1B loving Freepers care about Americans losing their jobs? I wish hypocrites would shut the H up.
Because they believe the media, not the facts.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.