People don't get it, breaking quarantine should be a federal crime, and offenders should also be sued for damages in civil courts...

I'm not seeing that. They need more testing kits. Somehow the miraculous "million" tests don't seem to be flowing around the country the way that was promised by the White House.

I'm also curious about whether a "set" of tests is partially wasted if you run less than a full set of samples at one time? (Much like if I print 4-up labels but only need 2 of them, the other two are wasted.)

OHA said they had 1500 tests initially, but have only tested 179 people. They offer no explanation for what happened to the remainder and they've been stalling for days on responding to how many tests were remaining. That's 100% under their control.

The key to getting and keeping the public on board is transparency and honesty. Sadly that has been lacking at all levels in this country.

Some highlights from the CDC visit on Friday, if you missed it...

We've just arrived back in the UK from Oz via Hong Kong. They take it very seriously in HK - every hotel as far as I can see checks the temperature of the guest as they come in the building, as well as when you check in. Everyone wears masks and hand sanitisers are everywhere. Seems to be working as they seem to be keeping the lid on it. We came onwards via Dubai on EK385, and on the leg from HK to Bangkok, all the air crew wore masks, and when we got to Dubai eveyone was observed with a thermal image camera, and anyone staying in Dubai had to complete a medical questionnaire and declaration. When we got back to Heathrow - what virus, nothing, no messages, no monitoring of passengers, come on and spread your germs through the airport.

Good point as even a small percentage of everyone is a lot of people. That would be terrible indeed. I know the feeling, I have a parent undergoing chemo right now.

Yikes, that's right around the corner time-wise. I'm guessing those in the industry already know this and are keeping it quiet to avoid a panic and to help with planning. If a lack of hospital attention causes additional deaths then this could make the whole thing even worse.

Thank you for the enlightening read. It's almost as if it's better to get sick now and get better in case you need hospital treatment. But then I started thinking--if your body doesn't build immunity/it mutates, this will continue until there's a vaccine. If the stress on hospitals will end up being this much in reality and the waves of patients will keep coming, then this will be a highly significant event in human history.

DiaSorin SpA says a new Rapid Response Diagnostic Test for COVID-19 yields sample-to-answer results in 60 minutes vs. current 5 to 7 hours.
Claims availability with CE mark and submitted to FDA approval by late March 2020:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/brief...-idUKFWN2B21CB

Terrible advice by New York City's Health Department:


"New York City's Health Department released the following guidance for people who recently traveled to China, Iran, Italy, Japan or South Korea -- or for anyone who experiences fever, cough or shortness of breath:

• Go to a health care provider and tell them about your travel history"

You've got to be KIDDING me!!!


CDC rightly says under the heading Prevent the spread of COVID-19 if you are sick:

"Call ahead before visiting your doctor

• Call ahead: If you have a medical appointment, call the healthcare provider and tell them that you have or may have COVID-19. This will help the healthcare provider’s office take steps to keep other people from getting infected or exposed.
• Wear a facemask if you are sick
  If you are sick: You should wear a facemask when you are around other people (e.g., sharing a room or vehicle) or pets and before you enter a healthcare provider’s office."

With NYC's advice to just go and see a health care provider we're likely to see a huge strain on the healthcare system, and much more spreading!

Sources:
https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/loca...-days/2319688/
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...when-sick.html

Thank you for that. So despite some of the claims here, the Coronavirus is JUST LIKE THE FLU. In the manner that means the most to the most people. Doctors who specialize in infectious diseases told NBC News it's too early in the study of the disease to draw conclusive links between gender or any particular pre-existing health conditions and the risk of death. Instead, much like with the flu and other common illnesses, each individual's overall health appears to matter more.

Death from the coronavirus is caused by respiratory failure brought on by pneumonia, said Dr. Kathryn Stephenson, an assistant professor at Harvard Medical School. Whether patients survive a severe illness comes down to their ability to withstand the symptoms.

�Once you get into acute respiratory distress syndrome, it's about how well can your body handle the stress,� said Stephenson, who specializes in vaccine development for infectious diseases.

A) It IS just like the flu: people with underlying health vulnerabilities are more likely to have adverse outcomes including hospitalization and death.

B) It's NOT like the flu: the chances of said people needing hospital or dieing is 10x higher for COVID-19 than seasonal flu.

Both statements are true and not mutually exclusive.

What's extraordinary for me is the ability to just read what one wants to justify one's actions...

China has (for now) brought COVID-19 under control through aggressive measures. To be fair, it's not completely clear which measures are the most effective...but I'm pretty sure "business as usual" is not one of them...

tb

If that is your take home message from reading that article, then all I can say is that I hope you don't have a GRE test lined up in the near future.

EDIT: trueblu explained it far more accurately and politely than I could ...

No, the article also clearly states that "Sometimes people experience complications, and need extra care, such as breathing assistance, ventilators or even extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO), which pumps blood outside a patient's body". Without which the "stress" on patients would be even greater.

I wrote "what matters the most to the most people". It should be obvious that most adults are healthy enough to withstand this virus or the flu. It is also correct that people who are not in good health have a rather high risk with Coronavirus and should take all precautions. For the rest of us, it should be business as usual and it will go back to just that once the panic is over.

I've been traveling a lot and while the passenger loads are down on planes and trains, I'm not the only one on board. There are plenty of others like me who aren't buying in to the panic.

Even for influenza, treatment most definitely affects adverse outcomes...

See this paper about impact of tamiflu on hospitalized patients with influenza.

But for COVID-19 we don't have any proven _specific_ treatments...we do have effective _supportive_ treatments, e.g. oxygen or ventilation. I can assure you: if you are unable to effectively oxygenate your body because of viral pneumonitis. Having oxygen therapy (no specific therapy, but supportive therapy) will make a huge difference in outcomes.

tb

You would be right if hospitals won't get overwhelmed, which they already have done in a) Wuhan in Jan/Feb, b) Iran, c) Italy...and so far, if we fail to contain COVID-19, this is just the tip of the iceberg...no country has seen more than 0.1% prevalence yet ...and a pandemic will see 100x higher infection rate.

Then yes, if you are in peak health, you will still probably be fine, but the middle-aged heart disease/ cancer/ inflammatory bowel disease/ etc etc sufferers will all also have much increased morbidity and mortality.

Business as usual, but at what societal cost?

tb

You've made this argument before, and I agree that destroyed livelihoods have terrible societal (and health) costs.

BUT: a) China managed to bring this under control outside Hubei within 3-4 weeks, and within 8 weeks in Wuhan/ Hubei with extremely aggressive measures. Even then, the economy did not grind to a halt, but it was severely impacted.

b) Assuming China has an aggressive, Israel-style 'no visitors without quarantine' policy, it will be able to go gradually back, not to full capacity, but significantly improved economic outputs save for some severely impacted industries e.g. hotels/ cruises etc.

c) "Business as usual" will allow increased production/ consumption _for now_ until infrastructure choke-points are breached: we can see this happens around 0.1-0.2% prevalence (i.e. Italy). Then, super-aggressive measures are brought in, which, because they were instituted late, are both less effective, and will therefore take much, much longer to bring things under control (if at all)...the knock-on economic impacts will be much bigger than being aggressive early.

d) Let's assume you really do care about people in LMIC countries: aggressive measures in rich countries will impact them to an extent in terms of consumption, I concede. But e.g. tourist attractions in Paris are not really dependent on factory workers in Vietnam for their viability, same goes for football matches. So yes, people will be impacted, but those people will be in rich countries.

e) The likelhood of severe economic slowdown, and its duration, will be far greater with a true pandemic than aggressive early measures.

What's really _different_ about COVID-19 compared with e.g. influenza pandemics we've seen, is that COVID-19 appears to be more _susceptible_ to aggressive social distancing, to a surprising degree. To be fair, we've never done what was done in Wuhan in modern history (as far as I know)...but it's worked far more effectively, and quickly, than at least I would have conceded...

These aggressive measures aren't enough by and of themselves: the population remains susceptible, and in LMICs, we just aren't looking for COVID-19. So until there's a vaccine, there is vulnerabiltiy. But if one can bring down numbers aggressively to the low hundreds, there is the possibility of extremely fine-tuned aggressive containment measures going forwards until we have a long-term solution. That won't be possible if there are tens or hundreds of thousands of cases, followed by millions of cases.

tb

PS 'the few' deaths you mention would be around 50M+ in the next 12 months...a doubling of ALL cause mortality.