IMO the only reason we aren't reporting large numbers of new cases is because of the lack of widespread testing currently being done compared to other countries at this moment (other countries are performing magnitudes higher tests a day).
Even if you think you have it, there's still not enough test kits available yet - even if you're swabbed it can be days for a result(Saying this from west michigan).
And because people with mild symptoms aren't likely going to the doctor. They can't afford to take off work and go, and if it's simply mild right now, why risk their livelihood? I kinda hope this whole thing is a wake-up call for why our system is so unsustainable.
People on reddit (take that as you will) have been reporting that even if the symptoms are significant and match the profile, tests aren't being run if no travel has taken place recently. These people get turned away.
COVID-19 doesn't mean there aren't regular flu / colds going around, too.
Long distance travel and exposure to those who have been (e.g. hugging your wife got off a plane from Spain 2 days ago) is still a top predictor for exposure.
> COVID-19 doesn't mean there aren't regular flu / colds going around, too.
Which is exactly why everyone with those symptoms needs to be tested. One of the most important things we need to do right now is detect the people who got the virus through community transmission.
> Long distance travel and exposure to those who have been (e.g. hugging your wife got off a plane from Spain 2 days ago) is still a top predictor for exposure.
I'd say that testing those people should be lower priority, since an assumption they're infected is more likely to be accurate, so they can take preventative measures without needing a test.
> Which is exactly why everyone with those symptoms needs to be tested.
This. I'm in my twenties so it's very possible for me to get COVID and only experience cold like symptoms (or less!). I'm sorry to everyone, but I won't self-quarantine myself for 14 days just because I have a stuffy nose (it's likely a cold right?). I'm fortunate enough to have the ability to take time off/work remote - but what if it's a cold this week and COVID in two weeks? I can't take a month off.
I'm from West Michigan - ATM there's very little testing available, and I'd only be tested if I had recently traveled. But we're past the point where recently traveling is such a big indicator - we're seeing plenty of community transmission for me to believe it's very likely everywhere already, and any lack of cases is because of a lack of testing.
This is a twice-in-a-century event. (Consider AIDS the other pandemic.) Our system should not be built for outlier events. Instead, we should make exceptions for those outlier events. (For example, we could have salary supports for those in quarantine and unable to work remotely equal to their average reported income over the last 12 weeks || a minimum wage and support for landlords or mortgages until the pandemic ends.)
Overpay for an extreme case rather than adapt your system around it.
Now, I have other complaints about our system and how it is unsustainable, but this is a poor argument as to why.
yes, the case count is about to sky rocket because wide spread testing is coming online but hopefully the fatality count doesn't. I think the authorities need to do a better job communicating that a steep rise in cases detected doesn't mean a steep rise in severe or lethal cases.
I think a steep rise in infection counts due to increased testing/detection would be a great thing. More data is always better in these situations and more confirmed infections with confirmed recoveries would probably ease everyone's minds a bit more.
To be clear I'm not saying more infections are a good thing, simply that if there are a lot more cases that already exist, knowing they exist and having more accurate data that shows us COVID19 is less harmful than currently perceived/projected would be good for everyone.
The president didn't say that the virus is a partisan hoax. His actions clearly indicate he doesn't believe it is a hoax.
The president did claim that some criticisms about his handling of the situation were a "new hoax" in the same way he has labeled previous unfounded criticism and accusations as hoaxes.
"His actions clearly indicate he doesn't believe it is a hoax."
Huh?
He called Fox News and said on air ""So if, you know, we have thousands or hundreds of thousands of people [with COVID-19] that get better, just by, you know, sitting around and even going to work, some of them go to work, but they get better,""
His whole schtick until just about a few hours ago was that the risks were all hugely overblown.
I am also curious to know exactly which "previous unfounded criticisms" you are referring to.
I don't know if I'd call that blatantly partisan. Stupid, perhaps, or a hamfisted attempt to prevent panics and economic crashes, but it's not especially political.
Yes. Yes it is. How many times has Trump tweeted about the stock market and how it proves he is a great president? Hundreds. Literally. His NEA chair has explicitly stated "I have long believed that stock markets are the best barometer of the health, wealth and security of a nation. And today's stock market message is an unmistakable vote of confidence for the president." His entire political argument for reelection is premised on his "business acumen." His down playing of coronavirus (to what end? why?) was a blatantly partisan attempt to gamble that this whole thing would blow over rather than risk spooking the markets.
Given the impacts that the stock market crash and his handling of the virus crisis are likely to have on the election, it is definitely a political matter. Realistically any time a president comments on anything it is a political matter.
so? That is not the same thing as saying it is a hoax. Plenty of reasonable criticisms to make but that doesn’t mean the President thinks the virus itself is a hoax. I am arguing for clear communication and facts and people are basically saying screw that let’s just spread rumors because, reasons. How is that helpful?
> Even if you think you have it, there's still not enough test kits available yet
The messaging on this has been pathetic. The other day UW in Seattle announced they had a capacity to test 1,000/day. Not adequate for the nation, but for the PNW, sure.
I'm in Seattle. While there may be official "kits" for this, the protocol can be run in any competent lab set up for this type of assay. DNA primers specific for covid-19 would need to be ordered, but this is routine.
ETA: I'm having trouble locating positive control template sequences.
I am happy for S. Korea running 100,000+ tests, and embarrassed that the US has maybe run 1000s at this point. I also think that the virus is widely dispersed in the US and the best we can hope for is to keep the case load at a level manageable by our health care system. I'm pretty worried about that though.
Even if you think you have it, there's still not enough test kits available yet - even if you're swabbed it can be days for a result(Saying this from west michigan).