DC: First COVID-19 Case Confirmed

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some infectious disease experts believe that the virus probably has been circulating to some degree in the United States since early February or even January.

This is actually VERY good news!

Right, I’m a bit in a state about the virus but the longer it’s been circulating prob the better if hospitals aren’t reporting being inundated with atypical pneumonia cases. That would mean not that many people are getting terribly ill. However, I think it’s prob too soon to tell and I’d like more reporting “on the ground” from area hospitals (as well as in other areas) about what they’ve been seeing.

Consider that this has been a higher than normal respiratory virus season. I think this is what we've been seeing.

[Anonymous]

Which criteria did the newly positive patient meet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Which criteria did the newly positive patient meet?

Probably hospitalization qualified him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone on here going to do anything differently now?

Yes. Leaving DC to go to the lake house. Next week will be hell once the testing really starts.

I would leave right now for our beach house if I was tethered here due to the dog's cancer treatment and my husband refusing to take ANY time off. His work better close.

I feel like I've spent my life giving and giving and giving and now I'm just sitting here waiting to get this and get sick.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which criteria did the newly positive patient meet?

Probably hospitalization qualified him.

More likely his overseas travel - he probably came from the middle east. There was a soldier there last week that was said to have gotten it - first service man.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They are sticking strictly to CDC criteria it seems. Sounds like the District's Health Department is keeping an iron grip on who can get tested in DC, meaning they can override a physician's request.

Clinical picture, travel to certain countries or contact with a confirmed case, people in LTCs, or someone really, really sick.

But that isn’t the criteria anymore is it? The criteria is supposed to be that anyone with a dr order gets a test, but 1) either there aren’t actually enough test kits even though CDC says they’ve been distributed, or 2) the tests have been distributed (or at least a sizable amount) but lab capacity doesn’t exist to process more than a few tests a day.

I’d like to see that more clearly explained by the press. This administration has obviously totally screwed up, a combo of incompetence and perhaps malfeasance, but I’m curious about the lab capacity piece.

The idea of a coronavirus pandemic has been anticipated for years, so I would have thought lab capacity for testing would have been addressed in various plans that must exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which criteria did the newly positive patient meet?

Probably hospitalization qualified him.

More likely his overseas travel - he probably came from the middle east. There was a soldier there last week that was said to have gotten it - first service man.

The article specifically states that this person has no history of international travel.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which criteria did the newly positive patient meet?

Probably hospitalization qualified him.

More likely his overseas travel - he probably came from the middle east. There was a soldier there last week that was said to have gotten it - first service man.

Sounds like it might've been another guy - was at Camp Carroll in South Korea

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which criteria did the newly positive patient meet?

Probably hospitalization qualified him.

More likely his overseas travel - he probably came from the middle east. There was a soldier there last week that was said to have gotten it - first service man.

The article specifically states that this person has no history of international travel.

Oh, I was talking about the Marine - sorry

[Anonymous]

She said he hadn’t traveled to a level 3 - and the Dr mentioned that as a criteria

[Anonymous]

^^ wrong thread!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone on here going to do anything differently now?

Yes. Leaving DC to go to the lake house. Next week will be hell once the testing really starts.

I would leave right now for our beach house if I was tethered here due to the dog's cancer treatment and my husband refusing to take ANY time off. His work better close.

I feel like I've spent my life giving and giving and giving and now I'm just sitting here waiting to get this and get sick.

You should just leave him. Not worth dying over.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They are sticking strictly to CDC criteria it seems. Sounds like the District's Health Department is keeping an iron grip on who can get tested in DC, meaning they can override a physician's request.

Clinical picture, travel to certain countries or contact with a confirmed case, people in LTCs, or someone really, really sick.

But that isn’t the criteria anymore is it? The criteria is supposed to be that anyone with a dr order gets a test, but 1) either there aren’t actually enough test kits even though CDC says they’ve been distributed, or 2) the tests have been distributed (or at least a sizable amount) but lab capacity doesn’t exist to process more than a few tests a day.

I’d like to see that more clearly explained by the press. This administration has obviously totally screwed up, a combo of incompetence and perhaps malfeasance, but I’m curious about the lab capacity piece.

The idea of a coronavirus pandemic has been anticipated for years, so I would have thought lab capacity for testing would have been addressed in various plans that must exist.

It's the criteria they are using.

They pretty much said DC Department of Health had to agree on whether someone could be tested. They explicitly said being in an airport in an affected area was not considered travel to an affected area.

It's really bizarre. This person would have been refused a test based on their criteria until he was hospitalized although he would have been openly symptomatic for at least a week before that.

[Anonymous]

If he presented with a really classic case in terms of symptom presentation and illness progression, then it is possible he was approved for the testing without travel or contact. He had been to a big conference so that is another risk factor.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If he presented with a really classic case in terms of symptom presentation and illness progression, then it is possible he was approved for the testing without travel or contact. He had been to a big conference so that is another risk factor.

Sound went out on my Facebook feed, but I recall nothing in the introduction about him having been at a conference. Pretty sure he was tested only after hospitalization on May 5.