Live data from Hacker News

50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

repubblica.it

371–380 of 480 posts

Re: 50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

#371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there is a more reasonable explanation why they are not testing you. Simply because they wouldn’t do anything with that information anyway. If the test is positive they’ll send you home to quarantine telling you to call back if your fever worsens. If the test would show negative, they’d tell you, guess what; “please call back if your fever worsens, and stay in quarantine anyway”. So the information doesn’t re…

I'm always wary of any strategy that is fine with having less information. Of course cost of information is never zero but in this case the actual cost of tests is relatively low.

Cost isn’t zero though. Have a lot of people with mild symptoms come in puts strain on health care, and increases the risk that important health care workers get the affliction.

If the test could be done yourself, at home, then I would agree with you.

Re: 50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

#372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Testing randomly gets us a better picture of how widespread it is then testing to confirm severe cases. I'd much rather know that X% of the population has it with an error of Y than Z% of severe cases are due to this virus.

Yes from the research/understanding perspective but a lot of the testing is also to provide healthcare to those most in need. You test the most severe to make sure you can treat them effectively.

100% agree with you, but would also supplement "test the most severe" to be "test the most severe and healthcare workers".

Getting healthcare workers out of quarantine if they aren't infected is also super important.

Both of those come as a priority before surveillance.

Re: 50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

#373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you don't understand. That quote is literally saying they are over capacity.

What are the results of the "over capacity"? Are hundreds of people who could have recovered from the virus dead today because they didn't have access to oxygen, or ICUs?

Yes, that is exactly what it means.

Re: 50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

#374
post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

current advice is: DON'T take NSAIDs (e.g. ibuprofen), which may cause complications due to interaction with immune system. do take paracetamol

aka Tylenol (acetaminophen) in the USA. Consult your doctor. Not sure what this means for children, but this directive against NSAIDs is a really important development in treatment protocols for COVID-19.

Tylenol / acetaminophen is not an NSAID.

Re: 50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

#375

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have not enough ICU beds. That is pretty much the definition of running out of capacity.

OK, so I read the Daily Mail article. I think there are a couple of things going on here. Firstly, hellofunk made a claim of "health care systems stretched to beyond 200% capacity". I asked where that number came from because it contradicted what I'd read. S/he's provided a source, which is this quote from the DM: Another medic in northern Italy told a friend in the UK that hospitals were running at '200 per cent cap…

> The first quote doesn't actually say they've run out of beds.

It does. It literally says people without much chances to live had not been treated.

If you had 25% chance of living, and are told you will be dead anyway, I am sure you would understand the quote perfectly at that moment.

And you are not even taking into account the amount of psychological stress to health professionals (and the families of victims) that have to tell people that or, worse, that they will disconnect someone even if it still had chances to live. There are nurses breaking down, and I expect a wave of PTSD cases in health professionals when this is over.

Re: 50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

#377
post #327

During the US coronavirus task force briefing just an hour ago, one of the heads of the HHS suggested (without outright saying) that one of the reasons (just one of them) the US is lagging on testing is because they're concerned about the efficacy of tests other countries are running. High false-positive and false-negative rates were both mentioned, in "tens of thousands of tests" distributed to other countries. Ther…

>because they're concerned about the efficacy of tests other countries are running. That's rich. I understand that the US developed test had a lot more issues that the standard not-invented-here one. And a lot of countries do the test twice, and only act on double positives or double negatives. >doing nothing is not doing harm How can this be OK? People will spread it if they think they are not sick.

> And a lot of countries do the test twice, and only act on double positives or double negatives.

The false-positivity or false-negativity of a test is not independent across multiple runs. Its not like each test rolls a dice and decides if it wants to be accurate or not. Its more accurately based on the human being tested; a false-positive test for one human would increase the likelihood for a subsequent false-positive test on that same human. Double-testing helps, but its not the solution.

> How can this be OK? People will spread it if they think they are not sick.

First, do no harm. This often means the first response for doctors is to do nothing (and gather information), until they're certain enough that their actions will not result in harm. Doing nothing is not causing harm; the harm has already come to their patient. The doctor is not the cause of that harm; the world caused it. Its a core responsibility of a doctor to not make it worse accidentally.

Sure, people may spread it if they think they're not sick. But what if a doctor provides a false-negative result to an asymptomatic patient? Now, that patient has been told by a doctor "you're fine". They go back to work. Now, they're spreading it. "My doctor said I'm fine, this little cough is probably just a cold." Patient doesn't go back to get it checked out again.

What if they provide a false-positive result to an asymptomatic patient? "Wow, that's crazy. I must have just gotten lucky" the patient says. Two weeks later, they leave quarantine after getting an accurate negative result. A month later, they actually contract the disease. "But, that's impossible. I already had it! My other doctor told me so, he even gave me a Test." Can coronavirus re-infect patients? Now, we're not so sure. Panic. Research studies. The truth is obscure.

This is how doctors everywhere operate, and this is true at the FDA/CDC more than nearly every other country. Our standards for drug development, testing kit development, etc are among the most stringent in the world. It would take a disease far, far more deadly than the coronavirus to compromise them.

Re: 50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

#378
post #237

I live in Japan and I experience mild symptoms since last Wednesday but not sure if my symptom is due to Covid-19. In Japan, You have meet two conditions to take a CPR test. 1. the symptoms with fever of 37.5 degrees or more continue for 4 days or more (for the eldery and those with underlying disease, "4 days" becomes "2 days") 2. you have strong laxity (malaise) or breathlessness (dyspnea), or you have underlying d…

I think there is a more reasonable explanation why they are not testing you. Simply because they wouldn’t do anything with that information anyway. If the test is positive they’ll send you home to quarantine telling you to call back if your fever worsens. If the test would show negative, they’d tell you, guess what; “please call back if your fever worsens, and stay in quarantine anyway”. So the information doesn’t re…

If you know how much the general spread is, and how often it requires different sorts of treatment (or is asymptomatic), you can plan your mitigations and restrictions much more effectively.

You don't need to know, the immediate doctor telling you to wait and see at home doesn't need to know, but the government absolutely needs to know.

Re: 50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

#379

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is because of the consequences of covid-19 on the lungs of some people, which needs intensive care and specialized equipment to cure them, that is rare (ventilators etc.).

People forget that ventilator means not only the machine itself, but you also need couple of doctors - anesthesiologist in the least and nurses that have to keep watch. Person on the ventilator needs to be partly paralyzed to not interfere with the machine. I do not know how many staff on average is needed per patient but it is a significant number. Also the length of time that people stay on it, with covid-19 it see…

Just a nitpick but a regular ventilator doctor that isn’t necessarily qualified to administer anesthesia is a Pulmonary specialist. They are generally the doctors prescribing the ventilation therapy. Below them are Respiratory Therapists who have a core of general knowledge and training for ventilation therapy. The RT is the person who administers the therapy and manages the equipment in the day to day. You don’t need to have run anesthesia ventilators to run regular ventilators. Anesthesia delivery is generally considered a different animal.

Re: 50% – 75% of cases of Covid-19 are asymptomatic

#380
post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Note, France is warning against NSAIDs specifically for COVID-19. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/14/anti-inflammat...

In the Guardian article in the parent comment, the warning says that any anti-inflammatory drug may be a risk, not just NSAIDs. They include cortisone as an example of a drug to avoid, which is a non-NSAID anti-inflammatory.

Wouldn't that just leave steroids, which is generally never good idea to give when you have an infection as far as I know.
Post reply on HN