Reply
Honored Contributor
Posts: 21,733
Registered: ‎03-09-2010

Re: Testing and the CDC/FDA

[ Edited ]

I view this thread as being political.

 

Let's all try to avoid that for now.


~Who in the world am I? Ah, that's the great puzzle~ Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,970
Registered: ‎03-16-2010

I have posted previously about how baffled I have been about the absolutely horrible problem we have had with testing.  Although, the CDC was transparent about disucssing the problems in their press briefings and even posting the transcripts of the briefings on their website, it was absolutely unbelievable that we were so far behind where we needed to be.  And then to start blaming regulations when those regulations for testing in these types of situations have been in place forever was even more mind boggling. And anyone in the CDC or the DHHS had to know of those regulations, or at least they should have.  

 

Another problem they had was relying on their flu based system for testing by counting on the state health departments which have faced major funding issues over the past years and many were woefully unprepared. 

 

There is no doubt that China kept specific information quiet for a while.  I think it is debatable about when they notified WHO & even after they notified WHO they continued to keep the information from the people and health care workers in China for a time.

 

But make no mistake, epidemiologists around the world were not caught off guard.  Early on, even with the limited information coming out, we knew there were cases of some type of viral disease resulting in a serious pneumonia that somewhat looked like SARS.  That signals a novel virus.

 

The vast majority of novel viruses that emerge are zoonotic in origin & early reports were cases were linked to a particular market.  That tells any epidemiologist that reads about it anywhere that there is a mutation in which this virus has mutated to where it now transmitted from an animal source to humans.

 

But early on information came out of China about a group of people suffering from the disease that had not had any contact with the market.  That means the virus had now mutated again to become transmitted from person to person. That is all any expert needed to know we had a serious problem.  Early articles out there about that.  So we knew.

 

Here is a link for one article that I somehow happen to have that was published in the Jan 24 issue of Lancet:

 

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)30186-0/fulltext 

 

There were earlier articles out there in medical journals about the family having no contact with the market confirmed to have the disease.    If you actually read the article you will note references of cases in other countries.  So well before Jan. 24 experts knew we had a novel virus with community transmission that acted like SARS which means its major mode of transmission was likely respiratory droplet.   

 

There have been both global and US models out there for some time about the potential threat of a novel virus originating from China or Africa.  I know, I required my public health nursing students to examine them & we covered those in class.  Along with that were all types of plans for a national response in order to prepare for a pandemic resulting from a novel virus.   So this is no surprise to experts in this country.  The need for mass testing, hospital resources, a solid public health infrastructure are all required components for a national response.  

 

 I am still confused as to how major warnings from medical, nursing, and public health groups weeks and weeks ago about running critically low and it was becoming a problem were not heeded earlier.  Why it took them almost a month to even attempt to address the situation is anyone's guess.

 

But in the end, there will be after action assessments and hopefully improvements.  We have to roll up our sleeves and work the problems we have now.

 

As I stated previously, testing isn't just about knowing numbers of cases but also being able to obtain data about this virus and how it is acting here in the United States.  That gives us important information. 

 

Now that we are doing more testing we are getting some data.  Just recently released was information about percentages and age groups requiring hospitalization.  Interesting results with 40% of cases requiring hospitalization in the 20-50 year old age group, I believe.  

 

Oh....and make no mistake....the new guidelines by the CDC for health care workers working with potential or actual COVID-19 patients to substitute bandanas or scarves in place of masks???   No, just plain no.

 

 

 

 


* Freedom has a taste the protected will never know *
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,915
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

So we have at least 40% of cases in the hospital currently?  So that would be at least 4,000 people in the U.S. currently in the hospital for this?

 

So then on the Worldometers Coronavirus website - what does "serious/critical" cases mean?  They are showing 11,069 active cases and only 64 serious/critical.

 

So are the 64 those in ICUs/onventilators and the other 4,000 are just in the hospital general population?

 

Trying to understand the numbers.

Respected Contributor
Posts: 3,970
Registered: ‎03-16-2010

@Isobel Archer, that is 40% of the number of hospitalized cases they reviewed.  Doubt they have had time to compile statistics for every single person in the US hospitalized for COVID-19 to date.  But they will keep monitoring the data to look for trends.

 

Just early data for what we call descriptive epidemiology.   


* Freedom has a taste the protected will never know *
Respected Contributor
Posts: 4,915
Registered: ‎04-04-2015

@pitdakota wrote:

@Isobel Archer, that is 40% of the number of hospitalized cases they reviewed.  Doubt they have had time to compile statistics for every single person in the US hospitalized for COVID-19 to date.  But they will keep monitoring the data to look for trends.

 

Just early data for what we call descriptive epidemiology.   


@pitdakotaOK Thanks!