Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 309 posts

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#251

Post by JBlue42 »

rmetzler wrote: post #70
capableweb wrote: post #8

> As the coronavirus epidemic spread around the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided restrictive guidance on who should be tested, archived pages on its website show. While agencies in other countries were advising and conducting widespread testing, the CDC, charged with setting the U.S. standard for who should be tested for the virus, kept its criteria limited Well, "other countries" also d…

Germany does the same. I’m under the impression that there is a big selection bias because I know a lot of friends who have symptoms but can’t get testing because they don’t fit the criteria. And the criteria is having contact with a known corona patient or traveled to a risk area.

In terms of 'symptoms', in the US they've kept it very basic with three listed: 1) fever 2) cough 3) shortness of breath. They seem very generic to me and probably result in a lot of unnecessary panicked phone calls.

From the actual descriptions of patients that have gone through it and been hospitalized, there are much worse symptoms, and maybe they should be addressed more immediately. The main one I've come across is the heavy chest pressure. I don't understand why, in the US at least, there isn't more specific messaging so that we can make sure people with more severe or COVID-19-related symptoms have the ability to get through. Not to mention the BS here of having to 'call your doctor' first before getting seen. There are a lot of people out there now without primary care doctors or that can't afford a visit. There have been no federal instructions on how we would get waivers for visits, testing, and possible hospitalization. If you've ever had to fight with medical billing in the US, it's frustrating and will be even more so after all this dies down.

On a side-note:

I was turned away from donating blood yesterday because I admitted to having a runny nose and a bit drainage that caused some coughing. I have seasonal allergies - it's March, it's been raining and plants are blooming, etc. I understand the caution but I had no fever (tested at 36.6 C / 97.8 F), which is about the same temp I've had for the past week (I've tested that and my blood pressure daily, just in case). I was a bit frustrated, because I really wanted to do something immediate to give back but so be it.

While walking home, it did make me wonder why they even bother taking 'healthy' people who could be asymptomatic if it's such a concern. They admitted to having no way to test the blood.

I think there's a lot that needs to be fixed and I hope that this crisis will provide a better future for us all. Epidemics aren't going to go away. We can learn and plan better.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#252

Post by js2 »

capableweb wrote: post #8

> As the coronavirus epidemic spread around the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided restrictive guidance on who should be tested, archived pages on its website show. While agencies in other countries were advising and conducting widespread testing, the CDC, charged with setting the U.S. standard for who should be tested for the virus, kept its criteria limited Well, "other countries" also d…

The U.S. likes to think of itself as the world leader. We should hold ourselves to that standard. "Other countries" such as South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan were conducting widespread testing while the U.S. was and still is not.

More importantly, the U.S. could and should have provided global leadership as it did for the 2014 Ebola outbreak.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#253

Post by tomp »

kiba wrote: post #232
tomp wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> overreact early, quickly and briefly People were worried that overreacting (in particular if the outbreak fizzled out, in which case any reaction would have been an overreaction) would damage the economy. Personally, I viewed that as a positive - a decently resilient economy would absorb such short-term shocks without any long-term issues. Easiest way to force-create such an economy? Stress tests (c.f. Netflix’s Ch…

I am mostly worried about "crying wolves" too many time that people won't take it seriously.

How can you not take “no flights from X country” seriously?

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#254

Post by fspeech »

asiachick wrote: post #167

I'm still trying to understand why Japan's numbers are so low. You can argue they aren't testing but if the infection rate is similar then the death rate should be similar was well regardless of testing or not. They aren't staying home. Restaurants, bars, and events are still open. Trains are still packed at rush hour. Festivals are still happening. They're planning on starting school in April. I can only see a few p…

I think the numbers are real. Shanghai is already taking Japan off high alert list and you can be sure they are very cautious. Since they monitor and even quarantine travellers they should have the data.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#255

Post by garmaine »

pacala wrote: post #242
SkyMarshal wrote: post #32

I hope one thing that comes of this outbreak is that all nations develop the processes and capabilities to quickly stop the spread of outbreaks in general. COVID19 is worse than flu, but not as bad as it could have been. We could get hit with something worse in the future. Imagine a strain of Ebola that gestates asymptomatically longer, or another coronavirus with higher mortality rate. This outbreak is good preparat…

> test extensively You can't manage what you can't measure. To this date, I have seen no reliable data on how fast the disease spreads, or how dangerous it actually is. Testing only 'people with shortness of breath and high fever for more than 4 days' is so biased it's not even funny. There could be 10x or even 100x more people with milder symptoms that are never considered for testing. Reporting '10% of people teste…

There is extremely good data from South Korea where extensive testing is performed.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#256

Post by js2 »

Symmetry wrote: post #131

Rather than just blaming the CDC, I think the real problem here has been the lack of coordination between the CDC and FDA? CDC: Our test is going to be so much better than the WHO's, we'll test for SARS-CoV-2 in two samples and also test for other simultaneous infections in this third part! FDA: Approved Hospitals: Hey, we can't get that third part to work! CDC: That's ok, just use the first two parts, that's all you…

> lack of coordination between the CDC and FDA?

Exactly why it matters that there was no one in the Whitehouse whose job it was to coordinate the Coronavirus response. Our current situation was predictable. This was written in 2018:

Around the same time that the administration proposed rescinding the funds, the National Security Council dissolved its biosecurity directorate, a small team focused exclusively on global health security threats and led by a director often referred to as the Ebola czar. Again, it’s worth remembering why that office came into existence — a hard lesson. Without a central office to coordinate federal efforts by many agencies, progress was slow the last time the world confronted Ebola. “It took months of wrangling to put things in place,” Mr. Konyndyk said. “If the only way to get resources is through long negotiations with committees, you are giving disease a head start.” It was based on that realization that the Obama administration established the biosecurity directorate and named the first Ebola coordinator.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/22/opinion/ebola-outbreak-tr...

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#257

Post by vladvasiliu »

bilbo0s wrote: post #47
capableweb wrote: post #8

> As the coronavirus epidemic spread around the globe, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention provided restrictive guidance on who should be tested, archived pages on its website show. While agencies in other countries were advising and conducting widespread testing, the CDC, charged with setting the U.S. standard for who should be tested for the virus, kept its criteria limited Well, "other countries" also d…

Well, that's a good point. If you don't have the tests, you don't have the tests. I get that. But then just say, "Sorry guys, we can only test critical cases and emergency personnel right now because we don't have the tests." What's concerning is that it's possible to reach a point where a person presenting with pneumonia, is not a critical case.

For me it's been pretty clear that governments in many countries have been caught unprepared. Does it really surprise many people that often governments are wont to downplay such situations?

It's pretty much the same story with the masks, which is a political scandal in France at the moment.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#258

Post by swat535 »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #238
bialpio wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a mask shortage and there is one mask left in the country, is it better for the society for the sick person to wear it or for healthy person to wear it?

I simply will not stand to be "managed" or lied to. The masks protect the wearer. That is a simple fact. Anyone who states/implies otherwise is either ignorant or a liar. Now we have the separate issue of the fact that there is a critical supply shortage. In such a scenario I'm more than happy to oblige in managing systemic risk by allocating all the masks to healthcare workers, the critically vulnerable, etc. But do…

He is not lying to you. That’s disingenuous. The OP is stating that the very little protection you get by wearing a mask does not warrant you horsing it. Masks should be used by sick people to Maximize their proficiency. I’m surprised to read such comments in the HN community which is supposed to be focused on engineering and optimization within a set of constraints.

Re: How the CDC’s restrictive testing guidelines hid the coronavirus epidemic

#259

Post by fspeech »

davrosthedalek wrote: post #191
seanwilson wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are surgical masks going to give you total protection? Of course not, but as you say they provide SOME benefit Face protection must surely have the side-benefit as well that it signals to others to keep your distance and that this is a serious situation.

Or they see a mask and think: Ok, cool, I can come close, I'm protected by the mask the person is wearing. Don't forget, people ate tide-pods.

People in Asia still ride crowded public transportations. So yes, if everyone wears a mask everyone is protected.
Post reply on HN