re: Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) ***W.H.O. DECLARES A GLOBAL PANDEMIC***

And the UK?

Has any sensitivity or specificity numbers been posted on any of the tests deployed?

Even with all the talk of US ignoring test sent out by WHO (US was trying to develop an overly complicated one that initially had a 2nd part adding testing for other coronaviruses but stopped requiring it when it had false positive issues in other labs) unless a ton are given like S Korea which also included govt monitoring and tracing on spending, locations, and communications to test a positive's possible contacts it spread across Europe. It spread some in SKorea but just obviously could have been a lot worse without their set up that also had to allow for multiple tests of people that may have tested negative in a past recent test or tests (positive could be new from prior test or existing infection not caught depending on what stage test becomes effective and test's accuracy but in large quantities with quick results doesn't seem to matter as far as slowing outbreak as when in doubt they could just retest and get results quickly).

I keep wondering about false positives for asymptomatics and false negatives for spread where testing done at fairly good levels but just not to level & speed of results of S Korea. I assume in some places asymptomatic people get multiple tests confirming infection and have to test negative multiple to be considered recovered, but I am not certain if all handled the same.

I don't think that any of those numbers are known. PCR tests are supposed to have a sensitivity well above 80%, but who knows if that's what is really happening.

On that note, take a look at what happened when Spain bought a bunch of rapid tests from China -- 30% sensitivity.

LINK

quote:

---

Why on earth are new cases surging in a nation on lockdown for 16 days?

---

This plot is considered surging?

I dunno, how many times have you posted the 'duh, this is a nothing burger' sentiment in this thread?

Let's talk micro-herd immunity for the small cohort of healthcare workers/clinicians

Obviously these people are far more likely to get this virus and get it very early. Quite a few have already gotten it all over the country.

2 questions:

1. Are they having a higher rate of critical care needed than the standard population?

2. Wouldn't them getting it now, still relatively early in this thing, be a good thing? That way they can work unimpeded by the fear of contraction and missing work later on when the numbers get higher.

quote:

---

Are they just going around testing everyone or are the new cases people just becoming really sick and going to the hospitals?

---

Both.

More tests and more people who already had it are getting worse and seeking hospital care.

In a week, we'll really see what the lockdown did for Italy.

pathetic.

Go back to Facebook with your overly dramatic conjecture and nonsense. It’s sad and reeks of insecurity.

I'm sure it was probably discussed on here already. But ofcourse FB warriors are posting that ibuprofen and advil are making people worse instead of fighting the fever. I thought that tylenol was normally used to fight fever not the aforementioned.

quote:

---

This plot is considered surging?

---

Your plot leaves off today's increase of 6,203 cases. This after 5,210 yesterday, and 5,249 the previous day, and 4,789 the day before that. "Surging" is too strong. "Increasing" is accurate. It sucks for Italy.