
Coronavirus may have spread undetected in US for weeks - devy
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/public-global-health/485389-coronavirus-may-have-spread-undetected-in-us-for-weeks
======
adrianN
I heard that China tests literally everyone who shows up a a doctor's office
with symptoms of a common cold. Why isn't the US testing more people?

~~~
devy
Because CDC didn't authorized the local/state to perform typical RT-PCR
testing[1] for COVID-19 until a few days ago and their guideline for testing
COVID-19 super strict probably due to funding and they have been bottlenecked
in delivering results. We know it is very expensive in the U.S. for such
testings (so it's likely related the fundings are not ready, given that Trump
just recently announced budget with significant cuts to CDC and WHO) and U.S.
is obviously NOT prepared.[2][3]

However, CT scans are a much better, cheaper and economical way in clinical
settings to confirm COVID-19[1]. Results come out in minutes and in negligible
costs vs. thousands of dollars for RT-PCR testing. Chinese government's
website has the most comprehensive guidelines and treatments recommendations
on their official website.[4]

Washington State today is like the early January of Wuhan, where infections
aren't officially confirmed even though it's been outbreak for weeks.

[1]:
[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200226151951.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200226151951.htm)

[2]: [https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-will-mark-the-end-of-
af...](https://www.wired.com/story/covid-19-will-mark-the-end-of-affluence-
politics/)

[3]: [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-
prepar...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/29/health/coronavirus-preparation-
united-states.html)

[4]:
[http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-02/19/content_5480958.htm](http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2020-02/19/content_5480958.htm)

~~~
dvfjsdhgfv
> However, CT scans are a much better, cheaper and economical way in clinical
> settings to confirm COVID-19[1].

Unfortunately CT scans have their own risk for the patient that traditional
blood tests don't have.

------
Ecstatify
[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-
ma...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/feb/28/coronavirus-may-have-
been-in-italy-for-weeks-before-it-was-detected)

------
nostromo
Doesn't the fact that so many people have it, and the vast majority of them
don't even get sick enough to request medical care -- or to make it obvious in
retrospect who they got the virus from -- suggest that the virus is much less
deadly than originally feared?

~~~
adventured
No. Based on the cases so far, we have a decent idea of the mortality rate.
2-3% is a reasonable figure.

That's anywhere from - roughly - 30 to 60 times higher than the common flu
depending on the year you source.

It might suggest that not very many people are multiple weeks into having it;
possibly that not very many older people have it yet (drastically higher
mortality rate for people over ~50-60 years of age); and or a combination of
the two.

If 3,000 people have it in the US right now, undetected (some may be at home,
sick, in the second week of having it, thinking it's the common flu; or the
symptoms may be mild enough to not alarm in most cases), they may be in the
first week or two of having it. If 300 of those people have had it long enough
to die from it, and 2-3% of those people do die from it, you're only talking
about maybe 6-10 people (point being, it'd be a small number).

~~~
nostromo
2-3% is not a reasonable estimate. It keeps getting lowered, especially in a
western context with better medical care. 2% was an early estimate in a
Chinese context, but even there it's going down as more cases are identified.

Now people are estimating 1.5%, 1%, or even less.

[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387)

~~~
adventured
2-3% wasn't an early estimate for China. It's _the_ figure. It's based on the
reported total cases and reported deaths. We have no other figures to go on
out of China other than what they've officially reported (anything else is
pointless speculation, we could each claim anything). The death rate there is
in that 2-3% range so far.

I do agree, generally, with your point that highly developed healthcare
systems should be able to get the mortality rate under whatever the figures
are in China. That might only mean 1.5% to 2% though, given China's reported
mortality figure is closer to the high 3% area.

~~~
nostromo
It's the figure of deaths in china / verified cases -- and we know that the
verified cases is low. In any case, I'll just go with The New England Journal
of Medicine on this one, not some online spook.

[https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2002387)

~~~
adventured
So far China has around ~3,000 deaths on ~80,000 cases.

3.75%

What are you trying to refute about that exactly? Those are China's reported
numbers. Online spook? I have no idea what you're talking about.

Your only alternative is to say, flat out, that China's figures are wrong / a
lie (Which figures though - deaths? Cases? Both? Is the mortality rate even
higher?). And once you do that, we can all just start making up numbers at
will.

~~~
downerending
Here's an amateur rejoinder: It's possible, if not probable, that the
infections have actually spread far more widely than what has currently been
detected. Those wider cases may have been almost entirely silent, and resolved
without significant incident.

If that's true, then the actual rate of fatalities (or even serious cases)
might be a lot lower than first thought.

The truth, of course, is that currently no one really knows at present. Right
now we have educated guesses at best.

------
tda
Can anyone explain to me why in Asia the authorities seem to be going all in
with extraordinary containment measures and testing larger groups of people,
whilst in Europe and North America the authorities are responding very
different? Almost no lock downs, very limited testing etc. In one country a
single patient is enough to lock thousands in a hotel or on a cruise ship for
days, while in e.g. the Netherlands everyone is assumed to be corona free. You
can only get a test if you have a fever, are coughing and have been in contact
with a known patient.

Either China is hugely overreacting, or we in Europe/US are in deep trouble.
There is not a chance the virus can be contained here I think. In the last
week he Netherlands has gone from 0 known patients to about ten, which each
have probably infected multiple others. E.g. one was in the ICU (not in
isolation) for a week just before diagnosed.

~~~
nostromo
China thought this was more like SARS.

SARS kills 10% of people infected.

Now we know that COVID-19 is much, much less deadly than SARS.

But China didn't know that when the virus was first spreading.

------
jrs235
Dupe.

Earlier submission and more commentary here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22461301](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22461301)

