Coronavirus: What questions do you have?

I think the testing statistics are helpful in the long term, but agree that a positive or negative test is meaningless when you can only offer supportive care until the illness runs its course.

I can't help but wonder if people knew the true fatality rate, they might calm down. (Of course I could see a million positive cases even with a low fatality rate making the panic even worse.)

We are seeing all institutions restrict visitors and large events being postponed. With that there is a certain part of the population doubling down on this being a joke and refusing to believe any statements by scientists and doctors. Concern is appropriate, but panic and joking about are not.

cwbullet said:

I am not sure that data is available to the degree you want it and most importantly, it is not accurate. It is only the data on those tested. Everyone keeps stating we need more testing. I have not seen a lack of test kits. It is a PCR so not every hospital can perform it.

I would ask a few questions:

1. Why do we need to test so may patients?
2. Once it is in the area, why continue to test?
3. If you have a positive test, would it change treatment?

The issue is not whether there are enough test kits. The issue is are testing the right patient with the right tests. Influenza A is a bug that is more common and has a special treatment. COVID is less common today (might change tomorrow) and to date, the treatment is the same as a common cold in most patients. Pneumonia from COVID is one diagnosis that we can treat differently, but the actual PCR is not how you diagnose this. It is a Chest xray.

Once again, I am not saying the test is worthless or unneeded, but those who claim there are not enough tests do not understand that the test is a means of obtaining statistics and does not save lives or change the treatment COVID patients receive at this time.

Click to expand...

Prefacing that I'm not a professional. However, the professionals at CDC said that there aren't enough tests. I'm not so much worried about medical treatment changing due to tests, and more about the public health side of the house. Who do we need to quarantine? Who do we need to watch? Are social distancing measures reducing infection rates? Are there hot spots where we should be more watchful of? What are the actual hospitalization and death rates? Do we really need to close schools? All of those things are really important to public policy if not so much to the doctors trying to keep people alive. Without better testing to know what we're looking at, we're flying blind on how to respond.

I am on other forums where folks with flu symptoms can't get tested due to lack of availability. The testing of course was most important over the last six weeks or so; available tests would have helped contain it. Now, tests available would indicate who should be isolated and who doesn't need to be.

Let’s assume I get COVID19. I am a normally healthy 55-yo male. What’s likely for me?

BBowmaster said:

Let’s assume I get COVID19. I am a normally healthy 55-yo male. What’s likely for me?

Click to expand...

Over 90% will get a cold.

boatgeek said:

Prefacing that I'm not a professional. However, the professionals at CDC said that there aren't enough tests. I'm not so much worried about medical treatment changing due to tests, and more about the public health side of the house. Who do we need to quarantine? Who do we need to watch? Are social distancing measures reducing infection rates? Are there hot spots where we should be more watchful of? What are the actual hospitalization and death rates? Do we really need to close schools? All of those things are really important to public policy if not so much to the doctors trying to keep people alive. Without better testing to know what we're looking at, we're flying blind on how to respond.

Click to expand...

Depends on what you mean. I have nearly 1000 tests for 60K patients. Eventually, you stop testing and assume they are positive.

Are the presumed positive cases reported anywhere?

We were told our hospital is only testing the severe cases. Otherwise people who present with the symptoms and others tests are negative are assumed positive and placed in isolation. Pts that need vent support and other aggressive care get brought in as they always have.

Currently, a positive tests are confirmed by the CDC. It is the confirmatory "test kits" that are truly short. The questions is when do you stop testing or do you. We are trying to answer that question now.

What is the postulated (best guess) percentage of the population that is considered to be currently infected? Obviously this would be better supported by a larger sample population of tests, and would vary by geography (clusters). I would be curious as to what the current speculation is for the population as a whole. By population I am referring to US population.

Las Vegas state of Nevada just declared state of emergency and cited lack of testing kits. Great.

I found this link, not sure how accurate the source is but it claims to update every day.
Breaks down cases by country/active cases/number of deaths/etc.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/#countries

Looking at the US, and considering that 26 died at the nursing home in Washington, there
were only 15 deaths that were "at large".
Not to mention that in the 26 nursing home deaths cases, they most likely fit into many of
the "most vulnerable" categories concerning health and age.

Here's another link (from the same site) with some more info on symptoms and timelines of infection...

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-symptoms/

Edit
Also remember that cases with mild symptoms won't be reported as CV-19 unless verified by the CDC (???) so there are, more than likely many cases that will not be counted as CV-19 if the patient doesn't go to the Doctor, and then get confirmed by the CDC.
Does that sound accurate as far as confirmed cases go??

SS

People are understandably upset about large events, theme parks, and schools being shut down to help reduce the spread of this disease. The economic impact will be large and some small businesses will be hit especially hard. I agree with the concept of social distancing and postponing these types of gatherings to reduce the spread of disease and hopefully prevent our hospitals from being overwhelmed and prevent deaths.

Who has ideas on how to best sell this idea to the public? With the media mostly reporting on CDC confirmed cases, the number of cases is smaller than what we are treating as assumed Covid-19 cases. We are asking a huge sacrifice of Americans, but many see the relatively lower number of cases and think this is a massive overreach or a hoax. The PR of this disease and methods to reduce spread need major work out of Washington and the media outlets both.

"WhiskyTangoFoxtrot: I guess you think the United States should have kept 325,000,000 flu testing kit in stock, just in case,huh"

No, no one has said anything about flu tests, I have no idea what you are talking about. The CDC has admitted they are way behind on testing, and part of it was due to trying to develop their own test rather than use one other countries have used successfully for 100,000's of thousands of tests. We are being beaten by nearly every other country when it comes to testing. For an example of how behind some states are: "At a press conference on March 10, State Health Officer Dr. Scott Harris said “less than 20” people in Alabama had been tested."

To avoid any additional confusion, I'm going to make use of the ignore feature.


Tony

I am not sure that data is available to the degree you want it and most importantly, it is not accurate. It is only the data on those tested. Everyone keeps stating we need more testing. I have not seen a lack of test kits. It is a PCR so not every hospital can perform it.

You obviously misunderstand me,. I'm looking for two data points,. 1) What are they demographics of those who have died from the disease. 2) What is the demographics of those who have been positively diagnosed with the disease.

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot said:

I am not sure that data is available to the degree you want it and most importantly, it is not accurate. It is only the data on those tested. Everyone keeps stating we need more testing. I have not seen a lack of test kits. It is a PCR so not every hospital can perform it.

You obviously misunderstand me,. I'm looking for two data points,. 1) What are they demographics of those who have died from the disease. 2) What is the demographics of those who have been positively diagnosed with the disease.

Click to expand...

No, I understood you. My answer still stands.

I can confirm the validity - this is as close as you are gonna come:

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/coronavirus-age-sex-demographics/

It is still biassed by two things: not every country is reporting and not every patient is being tested.

Given the many high profile politicians/celebrities/notables that have been tested positive for this thing, in US and around the world, isn't it reasonable to consider that a significant percentage of the US population already is infected (albeit generally with few symptoms)?

If we had adequate testing we would have much better demographic information to trace the spread. We might also see that the severe cases are rarer overall than currently believed. Or the other way around.

Edit:
And, had we such information, one possible outcome is that we wouldn't have needed the disastrous measure announced Wednesday evening.

WhiskyTangoFoxtrot said:

Because when I state an opinion, I like to back it up with facts, not feelings,.

Click to expand...

Why start now? Facts haven't had a thing to do with what you've posted to date.

CalebJ said:

Why start now? Facts haven't had a thing to do with what you've posted to date.

Click to expand...

Reported

Marc_G said:

Given the many high profile politicians/celebrities/notables that have been tested positive for this thing, in US and around the world, isn't it reasonable to consider that a significant percentage of the US population already is infected (albeit generally with few symptoms)?

If we had adequate testing we would have much better demographic information to trace the spread. We might also see that the severe cases are rarer overall than currently believed. Or the other way around.

Edit:
And, had we such information, one possible outcome is that we wouldn't have needed the disastrous measure announced Wednesday evening.

Click to expand...

The most important thing to consider is that the tests positive data and news is really yesterday’s news. Today’s tests have often already passed the first and were infected days to weeks ago.

Wash you hands, stay home if you are sick, and don’t touch anything!

cwbullet said:

It is all about calming the nation. This is not about politics. I am not sure why everyone feels the need to dismiss something that has not happened yet.

Click to expand...

Chuck,

Without getting too political, the answer is simple . . .

The country is sharply divided along moral, ideological, and political lines. Each side strives to defeat and supplant the other, at every opportunity. Some choose to try to place "blame" on government officials for events that are beyond anyone's control, in an effort to undermine the strength of their support among the voter base, particularly with the Presidential Election only a few months away . . . "Never let a crisis go to waste" !

As for "calming the nation", that is a herculean task, given the widespread, highly-contradictory, "information", "disinformation", and "misinformation" that is sweeping the internet and the mainstream media, on a continual basis. The motivations for each aspect varies widely among those who are responsible. Consequently, no one knows who to believe or who to trust for accurate information.

Dave F.

Dave,

You are correct. For my part, I regard what I can see, and I'm not trying to start anything here - I don't think that I am contradicting what Chuck has been saying -
(1) Perspective - here in Western PA, we have no confirmed or potential cases, yet they are cancelling everything in sight for weeks to come. From my standpoint it seems excessive even if (obviously) you don't know you have it until a few days after you've been exposed. Right now, there are 28 cases in PA, all concentrated in the east part of the state near Philadelphia, at least 250 miles away. 28 out of 12,000,000+ is not a level anywhere close to concerning me, and I don't think that's being irrational.
(2) How can I keep from getting it? - Wash my hands, etc. I do anyway.
(3) What if I get it? - I'm almost 65, that goes against me, but I'm healthy so I haven't got the mortician on speed dial yet. But I do have elderly in-laws nearby, and that's a problem, because of the higher morbidity for octogenarians. So I will keep an eye on myself IF we have reason to believe its actually going around our area, which right now, we have zero indication of.

The 24 hour news cycle drives hype as well. I dunno, it does seem excessive to me. I have a daughter who's an ER nurse and she agrees, but Chuck "outranks" her. And he's right - positive tests are yesterday's news. We can't rely on those other than to prove it's in our area, so reasonable caution, self-awareness, and zero panic is the way I like to play it.

So since the opportunity for containment is long passed, it is all about slowing the infection rate. A large percentage of the population will be infected, but over a longer time frame so as not to overwhelm the healthcare system. Thus the cancellations, closing schools, social distancing. This seems to be what it is all about now. Keep it manageable, so critical cases can be dealt with, and hopefully a lower negative (mortality) outcome. A local epidemiologist was on the radio and this is basically what was being said, and is the same as all the “flatten the curve articles” you can read online. Is this where we are at now?

@Blast it Tom! There is surely many more than 28 cases in PA because there is a lag between infection and detection. There are people walking around in every state right now, spreading the disease. When Washington state and Wuhan had <50 cases reported, the actual number of cases was >1000. Then exponential growth kicks in....

This article methodically goes through the data. As a scientist, I'm a fan of data, so I find it interesting. But the conclusions are sobering. (See chart 7 for the analysis I just mentioned.) https://medium.com/@tomaspueyo/coronavirus-act-today-or-people-will-die-f4d3d9cd99ca

@WhiskyTangoFoxtrot The article also discusses the outcomes based on age and comorbidities. To me, that seems like the best reason to not panic. For most of the population, COVID-19 is not significantly more dangerous than the flu.

By "flattening the curve," we are protecting the senior citizens and most vulnerable in our society. You will probably be fine whether or not the NBA cancelled their season (personally, I'm going to really miss March Madness), but your elderly neighbor's life may depend on it.

@BDB - yes I'd agree there are more than 28, I should have epxressly said so. As you say, we are protecting the elderly, which is important to my in-laws, and of course me indirectly. Thanks for the link.

I've now read articles about people who got "something" and felt sick for a bit, even without respiratory symptoms. Later shown to be COVID-19.

I wonder if that's what I got last week after returning from a business trip. Mild fever, chills, aches, intestinal issues. Flu tested, negative. Covid test not available passed after 3 days or so. Presumptive intestinal virus but who knows? My wife is now recovering from same symptoms.

Blast it Tom! said:

@BDB - yes I'd agree there are more than 28, I should have epxressly said so. As you say, we are protecting the elderly, which is important to my in-laws, and of course me indirectly. Thanks for the link.

Click to expand...

I know how you feel. My in-laws live in my house. He has high blood pressure, and she has Alzheimer's disease. I was most scared for their safety when one of my staff members was tested for CV-19 this week. (The test was negative.)

I'm at home with the flu today, and I'm doing my best to stay away from my in-laws. (i.e. spending too much time in my bedroom on TRF and other social media.)

Looking at an empty store shelf yesterday, it's obvious that people are using more hand sanitizer than usual. That's not bad, but I think it is important to note that soap is easier to find in the store, soap costs less, and soap is more effective against viruses like COVID-19.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...-hand-washing-sanitizer-compared-soap-is-dope

It sounds kind of corny, but the best thing many of us can do to help stop the spread of this coronavirus is to wash our hands often.

jadebox said:

Looking at an empty store shelf yesterday, it's obvious that people are using more hand sanitizer than usual. That's not bad, but I think it is important to note that soap is easier to find in the store, soap costs less, and soap is more effective against viruses like COVID-19.

https://www.vox.com/science-and-hea...-hand-washing-sanitizer-compared-soap-is-dope

It sounds kind of corny, but the best thing many of us can do to help stop the spread of this coronavirus is to wash our hands often.

Click to expand...

My wife is an executive for CVS. She is scrambling to get more hand sanitizer on the shelves.

As a chemist, I agree 100% Soap is much better. It dissolves the outer lipid layer of the virus.

BDB said:

My wife is an executive for CVS. She is scrambling to get more hand sanitizer on the shelves.

As a chemist, I agree 100% Soap is much better. It dissolves the outer lipid layer of the virus.

Click to expand...

What do you consider 100% Soap? I have several bars of homemade soap here, and things like Dawn dishwashing, etc.
So, could you define 100% soap better?

Angie said:

What do you consider 100% Soap? I have several bars of homemade soap here, and things like Dawn dishwashing, etc.
So, could you define 100% soap better?

Click to expand...

He agrees 100% that soap is better. Or that just soap is better. I better let him respond.

Anyway, according to the FDA and the CDC you just need "soap."

https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consu...soap-you-can-skip-it-use-plain-soap-and-water

You don't need "antibacterial" soap or anything harsh like dishwashing soap.