COVID-19 News

[Tranquility]

[/QUOTE]

I already provided the most obvious one. It's also possible this has way more to do with the Trump Administration's political wishes than any expert.
Experts Alarmed as CDC Abruptly Changes COVID-19 Advice Amid Reports of Interference

After previously encouraging people without COVID-19 symptoms to get tested if they have been exposed to someone diagnosed with the virus, US health authorities have abruptly reversed their position without a clear explanation.

The changes in guidance were quietly made to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) website on Monday amid US media reports of political interference from the White House.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly said that the US should do less testing, and blamed testing for making it appear as though the country is doing poorly against the pandemic.

This is not true: though the US is testing at a high level, that is because its outbreak is worse than any other country in the world, with more than 5.8 million confirmed cases and almost 180,000 deaths.

The reason is there wasn't a clear explanation?

Don't care about the politics, what is the medical reason for testing in the way that was changed?

 

[florduh]

Don't care about the politics, what is the medical reason for testing in the way that was changed?

I just told you. Asymptomatic people are still contagious. If someone was exposed, but is currently not experiencing symptoms, they should obviously get a test. What is the medical reason for recommending the opposite of that sane advice?

 

[Tranquility]

I just told you. Asymptomatic people are still contagious. If someone was exposed, but is currently not experiencing symptoms, they should obviously get a test. What is the medical reason for recommending the opposite of that sane advice?

The testing being talked about wastes time and money and panic people for no reason.

The symptoms will show up by the time the test results come back, so, there is no information that can be acted on. The tests don't help at this point without specific reasons like overall trend/ratio monitoring. (Which continues.)

If we look to why in a past epidemic the tests were stopped we find the experts said:
Monitoring Influenza Activity, Including 2009 H1N1
Why did CDC stop reporting confirmed and probable 2009 H1N1 flu cases?

Individual case counts were kept early during the 2009 H1N1 outbreak when the 2009 H1N1 virus first emerged. As the outbreak expanded and became more widespread, individual case counts become increasingly impractical and not representative of the true extent of the outbreak. This isbecause only a small proportion of persons with respiratory illness are actually tested and confirmed for influenza (including 2009 H1N1) so the true benefit of keeping track of these numbers is questionable. In addition, the extensive spread of 2009 H1N1 flu within the United States made it extremely resource-intensive for states to count individual cases. On July 24, 2009, CDC discontinued reporting of individual cases of 2009 H1N1, but continued to track hospitalizations and deaths.

The type of testing is implicated too:
Influenza Diagnostic Testing During the 2009-2010 Flu Season
The most accurate laboratory tests, such as real-time reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (rRT-PCR) are only available in certain laboratories, and these tests can take several days to obtain results. This season, CDC is focusing use of these tests on people who are hospitalized or for other reasons explained in the question “Who is being tested for flu this season?”
...
Who is being tested for flu this season?

This season CDC has provided Interim Recommendations for Clinical Use of Influenza Diagnostic Tests During the 2009-10 Influenza Season which recommends that the following people receive influenza diagnostic testing: 1) people who are hospitalized with suspected flu and 2) people such as pregnant women or people with weakened immune systems, for whom a diagnosis of flu will help their doctor make decisions about their care. CDC expects that most people with flu symptoms this season will not require testing for 2009 H1N1 because the test results usually do not change how you are treated. Additional people may be recommended for testing based on the clinical judgment of their health care provider.
--------------

There's more, of course, but the experts in the last pandemic stopped testing for what seem the same reasons as why we would stop testing now. How is that hard to understand? Why is some nonsense conspiracy theory with no facts to support it relevant?

 

[florduh]

The testing being talked about wastes time and money and panic people for no reason.

Wrong. I just told you twice what the benefits are.

The symptoms will show up by the time the test results come back, so, there is no information that can be acted on. The tests don't help at this point without specific reasons like overall trend/ratio monitoring. (Which continues.)

Again. Wrong. Symptoms may never show up, but that individual is still contagious. Though in many cases, you're right, people will experience symptoms before the tests come back. That's an indictment of our current testing practices. In many cases, we aren't getting results back in time for them to be useful.

There's more, of course, but the experts in the last pandemic stopped testing for what seem the same reasons as why we would stop testing now. How is that hard to understand? Why is some nonsense conspiracy theory with no facts to support it relevant?

How is it hard to understand that we want people who have been exposed to a deadly disease to find out if they have it before they go spreading it around the community?

Also, H1N1 ≠ COVID-19. COVID kills more Americans in a few weeks than H1N1 did in over a year. So, it's not really relevant.

I want to know what changed from last week that we all of a sudden don't want exposed people tested.

 

[Tranquility]

There is no treatment change from testing. Testing provides the person being tested with no information before he has to act on it. Testing is testing and, while we might want to magic some spit test that changes everything, it's not here yet.

This is pure political nonsense.

 

[florduh]

Testing provides the person being tested with no information before he has to act on it.

That's an indictment of America's testing regime. Not testing itself. If an asymptomatic individual who has been exposed to the virus could get results back within 24-72 hours, they'd absolutely have actionable information. Duh. You're not seeming to understand that there are asymptomatic spreaders. If someone spent an appreciable amount of time around an infected individual, they should get tested.

while we might want to magic some spit test that changes everything, it's not here yet.

It is here. There's just no political will to make those tests widely available. To me, every person who is moaning about "the economy" and imploring people to just get on with their normal lives should be begging the Administration to include cheap rapid tests in our arsenal. That would be the fastest way back to normalcy. Just hoping enough people ignore the virus until consumption is back to normal levels simply stretches out the Depression. Unfortunately, that seems to be the current strategy.

 

[Gunky]

That's an indictment of America's testing regime. Not testing itself. If an asymptomatic individual who has been exposed to the virus could get results back within 24-72 hours, they'd absolutely have actionable information. Duh. You're not seeming to understand that there are asymptomatic spreaders. If someone spent an appreciable amount of time around an infected individual, they should get tested.

-snip-

Right. Just to tease that out a little because some don't seem to understand, the actionable information yielded is: if positive, the person must isolate/quarantine and their contacts must also be traced and tested. The idea is that every infected individual is identified and isolated and their contacts treated the same, until - like other countries - we have the virus under control, it's not spreading and the very few cases that pop up are subjected to the same process and transmission eliminated. The purpose of the tests is not to produce statistics; they are a by-product.

 

[Tranquility]

Right. Just to tease that out a little because some don't seem to understand, the actionable information yielded is: if positive, the person must isolate/quarantine and their contacts must also be traced and tested. The idea is that every infected individual is identified and isolated and their contacts treated the same, until - like other countries - we have the virus under control, it's not spreading and the very few cases that pop up are subjected to the same process and transmission eliminated. The purpose of the tests is not to produce statistics; they are a by-product.

Track and trace is not going to happen when you have the numbers we have. That has been stated in previous posts and I supplied technical sources for doubters to confirm. Here's another expert:
Press Briefing Transcripts CDC Briefing on Investigation of Human Cases of H1N1 Flu

“But as we’ve been saying, that’s really just the tip of the iceberg, so we’re no longer going to expect the states will continue this individual reporting and we’re going to transition to other ways of describing the illness and the pattern,” ...“We believe there have been well over a million cases of the new H1N1 virus so far in the United States.”

The actual numbers at the time were estimated to be 43,771 confirmed cases and 302 deaths.

In other, non-expert words, we stopped testing at a national level at FAR lower amounts in that pandemic than currently testing proves in this pandemic. The expert is saying that with a projected million cases, what are we going to get from more tests? That was projected. In this pandemic we're at...5.8 million. What is the guess as to the projected cases out there?

Now do this test how many times a week for how many people to stop what level of disease again? Can't anyone on the left do math?

But, the outrage "changes" things. "Changes" because it seems the clarification from the spokeshole seems to say the same as the guidance--with an emphasis on the guidance's specific words rather than the press restatements of it.
Coronavirus update: Global case tally tops 24 million, U.S. tally above 5.8 million and CDC head walks back testing change after outcry

 

[Planck]

Track and trace is not going to happen when you have the numbers we have.

And you have the numbers because there is no track and trace. Unless it's because the virus finds USAers more tasty then everyone else.

 

[Gunky]

There are some hot spots where there are too many new cases and tracing is impossible - those places need to tighten up restrictions or shut down until the numbers are workable with testing and tracing. The rest of the country can in fact and is doing testing and tracing quite successfully. Apparently trump supporters are in a death cult - if trump can't fix it, it can't be fixed so just damn the torpedoes and open up. Other countries are getting this done - we can't? The only real obstacle is the trump administration's lack of will.

 

[macbill]

Focus on the Family on List of COVID-19 Outbreaks in Colorado

With three lab confirmed cases and one probable case of COVID-19, Focus on the Family headquarters in Colorado Springs, CO has been declared a COVID-19 Outbreak site.

 

[Krazy]

Almost 50 North Texans Drank Bleach This Month, Poison Center Warns ‘Stop, It Won’t Cure COVID’

Idiots; you can't just drink bleach.

It takes UV light to activate it.

 

[Tranquility]

Track and trace is getting revised in England. (You find in the last link it IS just England and not the UK.) The country is just too big to do it all centrally.
England COVID test and trace scheme changes tack after mixed results

Launched in late May, the scheme jointly operated by the National Health Service (NHS) and private contractors Serco and Sitel has had setbacks ranging from scrapping a promised homegrown mobile app to reports of contact tracers with nothing to do.

The scheme will lose 6,000 people on Aug. 24, out of a total of 18,000 currently employed by Serco and Sitel to call people who have tested positive for COVID-19 and trace anyone with whom they have been in recent contact.

“As the approach becomes more locally targeted the national service will adjust. NHS Test and Trace will reduce current extra capacity and reduce the number of non-NHS call handlers,” the health ministry said in a statement.

The new approach will give more responsibility to local authorities and public health teams to track people down, with back-up from teams from the national scheme who will be allocated specific local areas to work on...

The Numbers:
Weekly statistics for NHS Test and Trace (England) and coronavirus testing (UK): 13 August – 19 August

Their plan is to notify those who contacted an infected person to self-isolate. I assume they are tested too, but that is nowhere in any of the methodology I've seen.
NHS Test and Trace statistics (England): methodology
... If a person has a positive COVID-19 test result, then their case is transferred to the NHS Test and Trace service and can be managed in one of 2 ways. First, non-complex cases are reached either online or by a call centre. They are then asked to provide details of recent close contacts. These recent close contacts are then reached by the NHS Test and Trace service and advised to self-isolate. Second, complex cases are escalated to local health protection teams who work to identify and reach recent close contacts and advise them to self-isolate. ...

Edit:
I think I found what @macbill does in his spare time.

 

[macbill]

 

[Tranquility]

 

[macbill]

Why would a parent want to know?
Florida Department of Health claims number of COVID-19 cases in schools is confidential

After the first full week of classes in Duval County, school officials say they are still counting how many teachers and students test positive for the novel coronavirus. But, the district said, it can’t share those numbers.

The Duval County Health Department told Duval County Public Schools (DCPS) officials Tuesday they needed to get permission from the state level in order to tell parents and the community how many cases are in its schools.

 

[Planck]

So in other words embarrassingly high

 

[jbm]

Why would a parent want to know?
Florida Department of Health claims number of COVID-19 cases in schools is confidential

 

[justcametomind]

Seems fake to me. At least to a point.
Someone who discards its masks in the wild (according to the pics) should cut the straps (or just trash it in a bin instead, imho), but if you dispose of them correctly, in the case your mask filtered any active COVID-19 particle, you should mess with it the least is possible as far as I know.

 

[macbill]

US Nears 6M Cases of Coronavirus as Midwest Sees a Spike

While the United States has the most recorded infections in the world, it ranks 10th based on cases per capita, with Brazil, Peru and Chile having higher rates of infection, according to a Reuters tally.

 

[macbill]

The coronavirus disarms the foot soldiers of the immune system. Scientists theorize that boosting them could fight covid-19.

Until now, early-stage treatments have remained elusive. But an improved understanding how the virus disarms some of the body’s immune fighters, called interferons, is creating excitement among scientists who theorize they might be able to counter that process and prevent infections from developing into severe disease.

 

[Tranquility]

Some/most testing may be too good and we may be getting a LOT of new cases that are not infectious or a problem. It works by replicating DNA strands it finds and then tests for presence. Even very low amounts of viral debris may be causing positive results. Testing protocol needs to change to show the number of replications needed for a result. (For instance, a single replication positive result would indicate a high viral load. Three replications before a positive result would indicate there was less virus in the original sample.) Or, we need to bring new tests and protocols online to deal with the issue.

Your Coronavirus Test Is Positive. Maybe It Shouldn’t Be.

Some of the nation’s leading public health experts are raising a new concern in the endless debate over coronavirus testing in the United States: The standard tests are diagnosing huge numbers of people who may be carrying relatively insignificant amounts of the virus.
Most of these people are not likely to be contagious, and identifying them may contribute to bottlenecks that prevent those who are contagious from being found in time. But researchers say the solution is not to test less, or to skip testing people without symptoms, as recently suggested by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Instead, new data underscore the need for more widespread use of rapid tests, even if they are less sensitive.
“The decision not to test asymptomatic people is just really backward,” said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, referring to the C.D.C. recommendation.

“In fact, we should be ramping up testing of all different people,” he said, “but we have to do it through whole different mechanisms.”
In what may be a step in this direction, the Trump administration announced on Thursday that it would purchase 150 million rapid tests...

 

[Siebter]

@Tranquility – People with the virus will spread the virus, even if they feel no or little symptoms. There's no way to ignore that. You may argue against certain testing methods, but arguing against testing in general is very very ignorant.

 

[Tranquility]

@Tranquility – People with the virus will spread the virus, even if they feel no or little symptoms. There's no way to ignore that. You may argue against certain testing methods, but arguing against testing in general is very very ignorant.

You accuse me of ignorance? Please. You should have at least read the article first.

Do you have a citation for your claim "people with the virus will spread the virus, even if they feel no or little symptoms"? I understand there are studies that show a person who does not feel symptoms can still spread the virus. That's not the issue here, though. I'll wait for you to read the article before saying more, but, this is a basic science issue. To conflate the testing issue in general and the spreading with no symptom issue shows a lack of understanding/reading of the article.

As to arguing about testing overall, what particular point are you making? As I've tried to express repeatedly here, there are a number of issues related to testing and each have a different resolution or risk. No one has argued against testing in general here or anywhere. That would be silly and undefined.

What particular testing are you talking about? Specifically? What purpose do you have for the testing?

That's where the problem comes down. Even in the extremely pro-testing article I just posted that you have a problem with for some reason, the Times recognizes there needs to be substantial changes in testing to resolve some of the other testing issues (like large delay) we have.

Edit:
The argument on general testing might be summarized here:
Covid-19 policy: Assertions and provocations
using the data from here:
https://assets.empirefinancialresea...l-Partners-LLC-Letter-on-COVID-19-2020-Q2.pdf

...

As has been pointed out elsewhere, in the United States we have a profound division, aligned in large part by political tribe, about the purpose of social distancing, rules that shut businesses, and mask mandates. One camp, aligned with the left, believes that public policy ought to work almost without qualification toward the suppression of Covid-19 cases. This “disease suppressionist” camp believes that disease suppression is a necessary precondition to confident social and economic engagement. It further believes that disease suppression is sustainable for a long time via a regime of “testing and tracing,” whereby we test for the disease incessantly, and trace the contacts of people who test positive, presumably to isolate them.


The other camp, aligned with the right, are “flatten-the-curvists,” and believe that the point of social distancing during this pandemic, at least, is only to protect the capacity of the healthcare system to treat both Covid-19 cases and the usual diseases and injuries. The curvists do not support reducing cases of Covid-19 as an end in itself, believing both that “testing and tracing” will not work in the United States because people do not trust government and will not cooperate, and also that most people will in any case be infected eventually at little or no consequence before a vaccine becomes widely available. The curvists look forward to the day when enough people have had the disease or are otherwise immune that the chances that a still-susceptible person gets the disease in any encounter become very small. This is not the same as “herd immunity,” which is a mathematical concept, but the idea is that once infection has spread significantly in a population the number of new cases will dramatically decline regardless of government policy. A leading thoughtful articulation of this position is here. It is a long read, but worth your time.

 

[Siebter]

@Tranquility – It's very easy to just question one parameter in order to argue. But this parameter is out of question. We know that symptomless people can spread the virus. We know that even people with strong symptoms are most infectious *before* those symptoms occur.