Told Tonight There are ZERO Tests Here. Fever Climbing Above 102

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't think the tests are even that accurate, especially for when symptoms first appear.

I have no direct knowledge of that, it's just the overall sense that I get when looking at the numbers.

Wrong.

I might very well be wrong. It just doesn't make much sense to me how a husband can contract this virus and his wife who has been around him and breathing the same air comes up negative - like with Idris Elba and his wife.

Also, last I saw, Florida has tested over 1000 people and over 800 of those tests came back negative. For such a contagious disease it sure doesn't seem that contagious based on those tests.

Either there are false negatives, people have some sort of natural immunity to it here or it isn't as contagious as once thought. Maybe it's just not spread as easily in this country for some reason?

All the more reason we need tests. We don’t know how to handle it, because we don’t know what “it” is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again: To that same PP—more than that, let’s say it’s NOT coronavirus. That’s one less person clogging up the works treating a presumed case.

You can't treat this virus. That's the point of the first PP's entirely appropriate questions.

— a nurse who actually works with these patients

But if it's "just a virus", when she gets better, then that's it, she can go back to her regular life. If it's covid-19, then she needs to be quarantined for at least 2 weeks.

That's important information for her.

This is what I don't get about the "what does a test matter?" responses. Because it changes behavior, that's why it matters! I would never stay home for 2 weeks with the flu or a cold unless I was actively symptomatic. I'd check the mail or take out the trash at the very least. I had the flu last month and went back to work once I was 24 hours fever free off Advil. But if I knew I had tested positive for Covid-19, I wouldn't open my door for 2 weeks no matter how I was feeling. Trash and mail can pile up, and we'll break into the emergency cans of beans, and I'd make a list of everyone I'd come into contact with while I might have been asymptomatic but shedding virus and let them know. We need more data like this to help us track and contain. For every person that is willing to act like they assume they have it, there's another desperate person needing a paycheck who will shrug and hope for the best.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't think the tests are even that accurate, especially for when symptoms first appear.

I have no direct knowledge of that, it's just the overall sense that I get when looking at the numbers.

Wrong.

I might very well be wrong. It just doesn't make much sense to me how a husband can contract this virus and his wife who has been around him and breathing the same air comes up negative - like with Idris Elba and his wife.

Also, last I saw, Florida has tested over 1000 people and over 800 of those tests came back negative. For such a contagious disease it sure doesn't seem that contagious based on those tests.

Either there are false negatives, people have some sort of natural immunity to it here or it isn't as contagious as once thought. Maybe it's just not spread as easily in this country for some reason?

All the more reason we need tests. We don’t know how to handle it, because we don’t know what “it” is.

Let's say FL has tested 1500 people. That is outrageous. That is 0.007 percent of their population.

It's as if FL has done zero tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would you do differently?

NP. A test would allow OP to know if she needs to quarantine for an extended time even once better. She would know whether she needs to advise people she’s been in close contact with over the last 2 weeks. People may be more willing to quarantine if they know they had exposure to a positive person than just someone with a vague fever. It would give us a better idea where possible clusters may be cropping up.

I really don’t understand the idea that testing isn’t important if you’re being treated at home.

+1

Anti-science people don’t care about testing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again: To that same PP—more than that, let’s say it’s NOT coronavirus. That’s one less person clogging up the works treating a presumed case.

You can't treat this virus. That's the point of the first PP's entirely appropriate questions.

— a nurse who actually works with these patients

But if it's "just a virus", when she gets better, then that's it, she can go back to her regular life. If it's covid-19, then she needs to be quarantined for at least 2 weeks.

That's important information for her.

This is what I don't get about the "what does a test matter?" responses. Because it changes behavior, that's why it matters! I would never stay home for 2 weeks with the flu or a cold unless I was actively symptomatic. I'd check the mail or take out the trash at the very least. I had the flu last month and went back to work once I was 24 hours fever free off Advil. But if I knew I had tested positive for Covid-19, I wouldn't open my door for 2 weeks no matter how I was feeling. Trash and mail can pile up, and we'll break into the emergency cans of beans, and I'd make a list of everyone I'd come into contact with while I might have been asymptomatic but shedding virus and let them know. We need more data like this to help us track and contain. For every person that is willing to act like they assume they have it, there's another desperate person needing a paycheck who will shrug and hope for the best.

Absolutely. But the situation changes hour by hour. There are no tests now, but there may be tomorrow morning, or later in the day. Very likely, in fact. 12 to 18 hours means a lot if you are incredibly stressed because your fever is still rising and you think you need treatment. It is not as likely to make you panic if it means you might need to stay away from other people for an extra 12-18 hours.

Again, if this were the original post, I think this would be a different thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP again: To that same PP—more than that, let’s say it’s NOT coronavirus. That’s one less person clogging up the works treating a presumed case.

You can't treat this virus. That's the point of the first PP's entirely appropriate questions.

— a nurse who actually works with these patients

But if it's "just a virus", when she gets better, then that's it, she can go back to her regular life. If it's covid-19, then she needs to be quarantined for at least 2 weeks.

That's important information for her.

This is what I don't get about the "what does a test matter?" responses. Because it changes behavior, that's why it matters! I would never stay home for 2 weeks with the flu or a cold unless I was actively symptomatic. I'd check the mail or take out the trash at the very least. I had the flu last month and went back to work once I was 24 hours fever free off Advil. But if I knew I had tested positive for Covid-19, I wouldn't open my door for 2 weeks no matter how I was feeling. Trash and mail can pile up, and we'll break into the emergency cans of beans, and I'd make a list of everyone I'd come into contact with while I might have been asymptomatic but shedding virus and let them know. We need more data like this to help us track and contain. For every person that is willing to act like they assume they have it, there's another desperate person needing a paycheck who will shrug and hope for the best.

Absolutely. But the situation changes hour by hour. There are no tests now, but there may be tomorrow morning, or later in the day. Very likely, in fact. 12 to 18 hours means a lot if you are incredibly stressed because your fever is still rising and you think you need treatment. It is not as likely to make you panic if it means you might need to stay away from other people for an extra 12-18 hours.

Again, if this were the original post, I think this would be a different thread.

You give dcum posters too much credit

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What would you do differently?

NP. A test would allow OP to know if she needs to quarantine for an extended time even once better. She would know whether she needs to advise people she’s been in close contact with over the last 2 weeks. People may be more willing to quarantine if they know they had exposure to a positive person than just someone with a vague fever. It would give us a better idea where possible clusters may be cropping up.

I really don’t understand the idea that testing isn’t important if you’re being treated at home.

+1

Anti-science people don’t care about testing.

And stupid people don’t seem to get that there are no tests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't think the tests are even that accurate, especially for when symptoms first appear.

I have no direct knowledge of that, it's just the overall sense that I get when looking at the numbers.

Wrong.

I might very well be wrong. It just doesn't make much sense to me how a husband can contract this virus and his wife who has been around him and breathing the same air comes up negative - like with Idris Elba and his wife.

Also, last I saw, Florida has tested over 1000 people and over 800 of those tests came back negative. For such a contagious disease it sure doesn't seem that contagious based on those tests.

Either there are false negatives, people have some sort of natural immunity to it here or it isn't as contagious as once thought. Maybe it's just not spread as easily in this country for some reason?

No, it’s because their criteria for testing is so screwed up. For weeks, they would only test IF you had travelled to China, or IF you has known contact with a confirmed positive case. Only now are some (not all!) states testing on symptoms only - and even then, because of the massive shortage of tests, many mild case symptoms are just being told to quarantine at home unless they start to have trouble breathing - those are all likely positive cases that are not being included in the totals because they aren’t actually being tested unless their situations become dire. We cannot extrapolate ANYTHING about death rate or infection rate from US testing numbers because the way we are going about this is so screwed up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't think the tests are even that accurate, especially for when symptoms first appear.

I have no direct knowledge of that, it's just the overall sense that I get when looking at the numbers.

Wrong.

I might very well be wrong. It just doesn't make much sense to me how a husband can contract this virus and his wife who has been around him and breathing the same air comes up negative - like with Idris Elba and his wife.

Also, last I saw, Florida has tested over 1000 people and over 800 of those tests came back negative. For such a contagious disease it sure doesn't seem that contagious based on those tests.

Either there are false negatives, people have some sort of natural immunity to it here or it isn't as contagious as once thought. Maybe it's just not spread as easily in this country for some reason?

All the more reason we need tests. We don’t know how to handle it, because we don’t know what “it” is.

Let's say FL has tested 1500 people. That is outrageous. That is 0.007 percent of their population.

It's as if FL has done zero tests.

I think that doctors have been given the go ahead to test at their discretion in Florida. That doesn't mean that every random patient with the sniffles gets a test but if a doctor, in their professional judgement, feels that the test is warranted, they can order a test.

I would imagine that a good many of the tests were given to people with known contacts to those positive for the virus. I simply found the number of negative results to be interesting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't think the tests are even that accurate, especially for when symptoms first appear.

I have no direct knowledge of that, it's just the overall sense that I get when looking at the numbers.

Wrong.

I might very well be wrong. It just doesn't make much sense to me how a husband can contract this virus and his wife who has been around him and breathing the same air comes up negative - like with Idris Elba and his wife.

Also, last I saw, Florida has tested over 1000 people and over 800 of those tests came back negative. For such a contagious disease it sure doesn't seem that contagious based on those tests.

Either there are false negatives, people have some sort of natural immunity to it here or it isn't as contagious as once thought. Maybe it's just not spread as easily in this country for some reason?

No, it’s because their criteria for testing is so screwed up. For weeks, they would only test IF you had travelled to China, or IF you has known contact with a confirmed positive case. Only now are some (not all!) states testing on symptoms only - and even then, because of the massive shortage of tests, many mild case symptoms are just being told to quarantine at home unless they start to have trouble breathing - those are all likely positive cases that are not being included in the totals because they aren’t actually being tested unless their situations become dire. We cannot extrapolate ANYTHING about death rate or infection rate from US testing numbers because the way we are going about this is so screwed up.

omg they did this because they didn't have enough tests! they had to make choices.

yes, we do not have exact death rates and infection rates. this is important to have, but not the most important thing. everybody wants more tests NOW, but it's not going to happen right away. keeping distance to reduce transmission and expanding hospital capacities is much more important at the moment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't think the tests are even that accurate, especially for when symptoms first appear.

I have no direct knowledge of that, it's just the overall sense that I get when looking at the numbers.

Wrong.

I might very well be wrong. It just doesn't make much sense to me how a husband can contract this virus and his wife who has been around him and breathing the same air comes up negative - like with Idris Elba and his wife.

Also, last I saw, Florida has tested over 1000 people and over 800 of those tests came back negative. For such a contagious disease it sure doesn't seem that contagious based on those tests.

Either there are false negatives, people have some sort of natural immunity to it here or it isn't as contagious as once thought. Maybe it's just not spread as easily in this country for some reason?

No, it’s because their criteria for testing is so screwed up. For weeks, they would only test IF you had travelled to China, or IF you has known contact with a confirmed positive case. Only now are some (not all!) states testing on symptoms only - and even then, because of the massive shortage of tests, many mild case symptoms are just being told to quarantine at home unless they start to have trouble breathing - those are all likely positive cases that are not being included in the totals because they aren’t actually being tested unless their situations become dire. We cannot extrapolate ANYTHING about death rate or infection rate from US testing numbers because the way we are going about this is so screwed up.

The testing criteria are screwed up BECAUSE there are no tests.

It’s a way of rationing tests. Only test those at the absolute highest risk who have had direct exposure to known cases.

[Anonymous]

Total failure.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/03/16/cdc-who-coronavirus-tests/%3foutputType=amp

[Anonymous]

"there's no treatment so it doesn't matter" is the new "oh it's just a bad flu for most people."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"there's no treatment so it doesn't matter" is the new "oh it's just a bad flu for most people."

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:FWIW, I don't think the tests are even that accurate, especially for when symptoms first appear.

I have no direct knowledge of that, it's just the overall sense that I get when looking at the numbers.

Wrong.

I might very well be wrong. It just doesn't make much sense to me how a husband can contract this virus and his wife who has been around him and breathing the same air comes up negative - like with Idris Elba and his wife.

Also, last I saw, Florida has tested over 1000 people and over 800 of those tests came back negative. For such a contagious disease it sure doesn't seem that contagious based on those tests.

Either there are false negatives, people have some sort of natural immunity to it here or it isn't as contagious as once thought. Maybe it's just not spread as easily in this country for some reason?

A lot of people are getting tested when they have chest tightness from panic attacks or undiagnosed asthma. If you don't even feel that bad and don't have a fever, don't waste a test on yourself. Save the tests for the sick people.