As Coronavirus Numbers Rise, C.D.C. Testing Comes Under Fire (nytimes.com) 277
The coronavirus has found a crack in the nation's public health armor, and it is not one that scientists foresaw: diagnostic testing. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention botched its first attempt to mass produce a diagnostic test kit, a discovery made only after officials had shipped hundreds of kits to state laboratories. From a report: A promised replacement took several weeks, and still did not permit state and local laboratories to make final diagnoses. And the C.D.C. essentially ensured that Americans would be tested in very few numbers by imposing stringent and narrow criteria, critics say. On Monday, following mounting criticism of the federal response, Trump administration officials promised a rapid expansion of the country's testing capacities. With the help of private companies and academic centers, as many as a million diagnostic tests could be administered by the end of this week, said Dr. Stephen Hahn, commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration. But many scientists wonder if the moves come too late. As of Monday evening, 103 Americans were infected with the coronavirus in the United States. Six deaths have been reported. Dozens of patients, in several states, may have caught the virus in their communities, suggesting that the pathogen already may be circulating locally.
The case numbers are rising not just because the virus is spreading, but because federal officials have taken steps toward expanded testing. The persistent drumbeat of positive test results has raised critical questions about the government's initial management of the outbreak. Why weren't more Americans tested sooner? How many may be carrying the virus now? Most disturbing of all: Did a failure to provide adequate testing give the coronavirus time to gain a toehold in the United States? "Clearly, there have been problems with rolling out the test," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, former director of the C.D.C. "There are a lot of frustrated doctors and patients and health departments." Still, Dr. Frieden said he thought the situation was improving. Other experts, although supportive of the agency, were mystified that federal officials could have committed so many missteps. "The incompetence has really exceeded what anyone would expect with the C.D.C.," said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard University. "This is not a difficult problem to solve in the world of viruses."
The case numbers are rising not just because the virus is spreading, but because federal officials have taken steps toward expanded testing. The persistent drumbeat of positive test results has raised critical questions about the government's initial management of the outbreak. Why weren't more Americans tested sooner? How many may be carrying the virus now? Most disturbing of all: Did a failure to provide adequate testing give the coronavirus time to gain a toehold in the United States? "Clearly, there have been problems with rolling out the test," said Dr. Thomas Frieden, former director of the C.D.C. "There are a lot of frustrated doctors and patients and health departments." Still, Dr. Frieden said he thought the situation was improving. Other experts, although supportive of the agency, were mystified that federal officials could have committed so many missteps. "The incompetence has really exceeded what anyone would expect with the C.D.C.," said Dr. Michael Mina, an epidemiologist at Harvard University. "This is not a difficult problem to solve in the world of viruses."
A single data point (Score:5, Insightful)
A crude estimator of latent cases (Score:2)
The following estimate is crude and likely an upper bound but if you look at NY it took 32 tests to find one person with corona virus. IN washington state they found 16 people in 300 tests. So very roughly then it seems that 3 or 4 % of the people tested have coronavirus. Presumably they are testing people with fevers and resperatory issues. If one runs with this number then it would mean 3% of all the resperatory infections for the last month are corona virus.
I would guess some people receive more tha
But in fairness, it's hard to do with viruses (Score:5, Interesting)
By the way, saying "lets test for a virus" is a lot easier than doing it. Unlike Bacteria, viruses are difficult to test for, especially early in the infection when the titer is low. And even harder to find exposures in things like nasal swaps. One of the better ways later in an infection is the patient's antibodies but that isn't a particularly easy test either.
Re: (Score:3)
By the way, saying "lets test for a virus" is a lot easier than doing it.
Not really. The testing is mostly automated these days - you just mix the plasma sample, reverse transcriptase and primers. Then try to amplify it and watch for fluorescing indicators.
There are multiple solutions on the market that automate most aspects of it. It's now so cheap that it's run routinely for diagnostic purpose (at least in my hospital).
Re: (Score:3)
The number of samples in the single run is usually limited by other factors, like the way the samples are prepared, fears of cros
Re:A crude estimator of latent cases (Score:5, Insightful)
If one runs with this number then it would mean 3% of all the resperatory infections for the last month are corona virus.
No, it doesn't - you assume they are blanket-testing every person with respiratory infections, that is very unlikely - if there were only 32 people with respiratory infections in New York State, or 300 in Washington state, your theory might hold water.
Re: (Score:2)
I believe the actual figure is 400/day. That's still not nearly enough.
Re:A single data point (Score:4, Informative)
You believe wrong. On the 29th March, the CDC were reporting 459 total tested [archive.org] patients since January 21.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Yeah, Timmy thinks it is 450 people total, and you think it is 400/day. Meanwhile neither of you fucking know anything.
It was actually 1 person, 400 times on Monday and 50 times on Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
Months into this mess, the CDC had tested only about 450 individuals.
Any large government (or corporate) entity will become as corrupt as possible over time. The only reason to expect it to be able to do any part of its job at all is that it does it regularly in a way that the results can be judged. The CDC goes many years between virus outbreaks that get public attention. That's a lot of time for it to fill up with seatwarmers and empire builders, entirely incapable or even uninterested in the organizations mission - same as any organization.
So, rationally, we would expe
Re: (Score:3)
I just saw a post elsewhere which pointed out that Italy has now tested over 9000 people, which may explain the higher number of people who are infected. In other words, the USA is just blind on the rate of infection.
Re:A single data point (Score:4, Funny)
Are you saying that the President was exaggerating?
Shoting the messenger is NOT the cure (Score:3)
So let's shoot the messenger, shall we? Given the state of today's Slashdot, I'm shocked the comment isn't packed full of insightful mods.
No, I don't agree that the CDC has been negligent. My belief would be more like "The remains of the CDC did the best they could under the circumstances."
Those circumstances have always involved tough financial constraints and complicated epidemiological questions, but the last few years have added all sort of purely political obstacles, too. All the things that cannot be
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot over that 11 billion$ and I'll get right on it.
Re: (Score:2)
I regret keeping your account in good standing. You're sounding a lot more like amimojo suffering from PMS than thunderf00t.
Protect the Institutional Investors (Score:2)
They did a good job buying some time for the wealthy to get their money out of stocks. When they oversold last week, the Fed inflated the currency and pumped "liquidity" in through a massively-oversubscribed repo window.
It looks like they need one more week before they can let the cards fall with just the schlubs' retirement accounts left holding the bag.
https://youtu.be/0Wg_OTTzUv8 [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Get over yourself. The virus will run its course and you can go back to your regular boring paranoid life in the basement of your safe suburban home.
Re: (Score:2)
With the benefit of hindsight... (Score:2, Interesting)
With the benefit of hindsight, critics argue that the current administration had missteps, but argue that somehow they would have magically avoided those same mistakes were they in charge.
The lies and falsehoods surrounding this epidemic are numerous and seem, sadly, to be politically-motivated.
Comparisons with the swine flu epidemic are rarely made, but if I remember correctly, it took six months and a thousand dead Americans before the previous administration declared it a National Emergency - this admini
Re:With the benefit of hindsight... (Score:5, Insightful)
With the benefit of hindsight, critics argue that the current administration had missteps, but argue that somehow they would have magically avoided those same mistakes were they in charge.
The lies and falsehoods surrounding this epidemic are numerous and seem, sadly, to be politically-motivated.
Comparisons with the swine flu epidemic are rarely made, but if I remember correctly, it took six months and a thousand dead Americans before the previous administration declared it a National Emergency - this administration in comparison was attacked when a travel ban and quarantine were imposed back in January (charges of xenophobia, racism, and the like were levied by critics at the time). The one thing most critic have in common, is they never offer suggestions at the time, they sit back and wait for those that do act to fail, then pounce.
Where were our so-called leaders in December, January, as this coronavirus epidemic was taking hold around the world? They were busy re-litigating Russian Collusion and attempted Ukrainian election interference.
You do realize that it is the executive branch's responsibility to execute these kinds of responses, right? Any criticism on the legislative branch should be related to budget for responses (decided in 2018, in this case), as well as any emergency funding that was requested but not authorized. And let's not get into a game of who was too busy doing pointless things these last few months. How many rallies has Trump held where he has literally wasted time ranting incoherently about people's large bowel movements, etc. The guy has lost his mind and people continue to support his insanity (and his megalomania, not to mention dishonesty and corruption) because he is not HRC, Biden, Bernie, or whoever the bad guy in blue is this week. My lord. What has this country devolved into when it is better to elect a senile shyster because he's supposedly a republican than to vote for somebody (literally almost anybody) who isn't 'our party'? I can't tell you how many ultra conservative members of my family were talking about how evil and terrible Trump was until he won the republican nomination and then, as if a switch had been flipped, he suddenly became the most amazing man on the planet. It is pathetic. I'm over it. I'd literally rather vote for that golden retriever [go.com] than for Trump and I literally cannot understand the hypocrisy and the cognitive dissonance exhibited by even members of my own family. It feels like the candidates at each election cycle are worse and even more embarrassing than the candidates before them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
They were also de-funding the CDC.
Re: (Score:3)
Just to be clear: The CDC has not lost any funding [snopes.com], Trump proposed a budget cut that didn't happen. [politifact.com] However he did did fire the U.S. pandemic response team in 2018 to cut costs." [snopes.com]
Well for one not reduce CDC budget (Score:3)
"With the benefit of hindsight, critics argue that the current administration had missteps, but argue that somehow they would have magically avoided those same mistakes were they in charge."
Well that one is pretty damn easy. I am big on science and hate military or stupid wall. So I would never EVER have cut or made the CDC budget stable (cut by inflation). I would never had make all that shit up on a wall or increased or made the military US budget stable
Possibly a case of Not Invented Here. (Score:2)
What happened to the CDC test kit could happen to any new test kit: the control samples produced spurious positives more often than acceptable.
The thing is there was another test state labs could have been using while the CDC worked to fix this: the WHO test. But for some reason the FDA didn't give approval to use that, meaning that all testing in the US had to be done at the CDC, which simply doesn't have the capacity to handle all the testing for the country.
Re: (Score:2)
Where are the Chinese test kits? (Score:2)
How is it that the CDC can't create a test that works correctly, but the Chinese have tested hundreds of thousands of people?
--
There's a war on, man! People are being killed! - Hunter S. Thompson
Re: (Score:3)
How is it that you believe anything being reported by the Chinese government?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it that the CDC can't create a test that works correctly, but the Chinese have tested hundreds of thousands of people?
--
There's a war on, man! People are being killed! - Hunter S. Thompson
Let's break down your compound question:
1.) How is it that the CDC can't create a test that works correctly ...
2.) How is it that the Chinese have tested hundreds of thousands of people?
How about this:
1.) The CDC is fucked up under the current administration.
2.) The Chinese government controls hundreds of thousands of people.
There's your answers, but reading between the lines, I sense you're implying the Chinese testing method is superior to the fucked up US fail.
Seeing as how the government of China is sel
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the Chinese started killing corrupt people, we create government jobs for them.
Correlation, causation... who am I to say which it is...
Nightmare in Seattle (Score:2)
https://twitter.com/into_the_b... [twitter.com]
This thread on twitter points to a huge problem with what's going on in Seattle. They aren't testing anyone who hasn't been out of the country, and who hasn't come in contact with known infected patients. This is obviously a huge problem for people presenting with symptoms—this is exactly how you miss containing an epidemic. Given that there are already patients starting to pop up with no known connection to travelers or known infected patients, this is hugely troublin
The CDC needs to lay this on ... (Score:2)
... the doorstep of the present Administration that has shown no respect for CDC scientists, has suppressed or edited CDC reporting, and has de-funded parts of CDC.
That would get the monkey off their back and place it where it belongs.
In compliance with sexual predator laws, we need to make sure the monkey has no pussy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Really the entire process of healthcare for regular ailments is backwards for a pandemic - person feels sick, decides whether to pursue treatment, which they purchase from a provider. All totally backwards for this. By the time somebody is aware they need treatment, they've been spreading it for a week. The most important stage is already over, as far as limiting the spread is concerned.
Of course life-saving care is still needed
Re: (Score:3)
There is no way to handle a global pandemic "that would have worked."
Re: (Score:2)
As for the US, it might help if at least we weren't flying in dark. The extreme lack of testing means we really have no clue how many carriers there are. Within a week or two the most reasonable assumption will be it is everywhere. But, true, we arguably would have reached that point anyways.
Re:And these are the people.... (Score:4, Insightful)
What good is the testing if there are so many false-negatives? People testing clean one day who then test positive the next? The folks who believe the government has a magic wand and can save them from something like this are in for a hard but valuable lesson.
Re: (Score:3)
Slowing down its spread will keep our hospital capacity available and prevent unnecessary deaths. It's not necessarily just about containing it.
Re:And these are the people.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, the private sector isn't malicious. It just has a very easily specified goal and doesn't give a shit about anything else: Profit.
This is the main difference between the public and the private sector providing goods or services. In the private sector, the goods/services provided are a means to the end. It will be as good as it has to be to sell, and it will be tailored to ensure maximizing the profit. In the private sector, the service provided IS the end. And it will be tailored to serve the purpose int
Re: (Score:2)
The gov ( the Feds especially) is supposed to be able to handle the things that are LARGE that smaller municipalities can't really do, and they fail often even at that.
My eye roll was seeing how well they do in a crisis they should be able to help with....and we're wanting to give the Feds even broader control over our every day medical needs when they can't even do what they're supposed to d
Re: (Score:2)
This problem is bigger than the Federal government, or ANY government though. Do you complain when the Federal government doesn't prevent a hurricane, earthquake or tornado? This is 1000x bigger than any of those. All they can do is react after the dust has settled and this thing is only just beginning.
Re: (Score:3)
Guess under whose leadership the CDC's budget was slashed? Who fired the CDC's pandemic specialist? You can't shoot someone in the leg and then blame them for being bad at running.
LIAR! (Score:5, Informative)
Politifact debunked the talking point you regurgitate. You misrepresent proposed cuts as if they were real. In reality Trump signed budgets with increases
LIAR! LIAR! REPUBLICAN LIAR!
CDC budget 2016: $12.172B, CDC budget in 2018: $11.059B. Source: https://www.hhs.gov/about/budg... [hhs.gov]
Budget cuts were made by the Republican Senate, House and President. The cuts to 2019 and 2020 budget were maintained in the 2-year budget deal signed in May 2018 (still by Republicans).
Re:Spending on infectious disease & domestic p (Score:5, Informative)
You are conflating the total CDC budget with the spending related to infectious disease like Coronavirus.
Let me quote it for you.
"Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases": 2016 - $582 million, 2018 - $514 million.
"Immunization and Respiratory Disease": 2016 - $797 million, 2018 - $701 million.
"Public Health Preparedness and Response": 2016 - $1413 million, 2018 - $1266 million.
The only programs in CDC that got increased funding are: "Vaccines For Children", "World Trade Center Health Program", "Energy Employee Occupational Illness Compensation Program" and "Buildings and Facilities".
There's absolutely no way to spin that turd in Republicans' favor.
Re: (Score:2)
You left out #3 Sweden. (And people wonder why I became a citizen there.)
Re: (Score:3)
That's not the infection rate - that's the diagnostic positive rate. I don't have to explain to you how the cost of healthcare keeps people from even going to a doctor, do I? Our numbers are going to remain low until this thing is everywhere and vulnerable populations have no choice but to go to the hospital. Then the diagnoses will explode.
Re: (Score:3)
Who can't afford $25-$50 co-pay to see a Dr?
Re:And these are the people.... (Score:5, Informative)
No, the CDC does not deliver health care.
Re: (Score:2)
But it IS, a Federal Govt. run entity......that was the analogy, that we see the inefficiency of Federal bureaucracies, etc....and that I'm not sure I want the same type of DMV (or name any other type of federal/state govt type entity as a general example) in charge of my general health care.
Sheesh...didn't think I'd have to explain this much to this crowd.
Re: (Score:3)
The federal bureaucracies would be a lot more efficient if their leadership was staffed. The Trump Administration still hasn't filled many of its leadership positions, and we're almost to the end of the first term.
The real problem here isn't the CDC, it's the FDA. Many FDA activities have stalled over the past three years as the agency has gone through five leadership changes. It's the FDA which failed to approve the ready-to-go WHO test for state use when the CDC test kit had problems.
Re: (Score:2)
If only there were even more government bureaucrats then the virus would've been cured by now!
Re:And these are the people.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that possibly because they were unqualified? His appointments have been fairly bad so far - for example, why put a neurosurgeon in charge of Housing and Urban Development? He's fired many of his own appointee's - though not for being incompetent, rather just contradicting him publicly.
Re:And these are the people.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the Senate promptly confirmed Trump's first nominee for FDA, but when he retired the administration took six months to even name a nominee; after the nominee was formally submitted he was also promptly confirmed -- in about a month.
Trump has stated he has a preference for "acting nominees" because of the flexibility that gives him, even though this undermines the Constitution's "advice and consent" clause. However this is causing chaos, especially given the extremely high resignation rate in the administration.
At present there are 62 nominees across the executive branch who have been nominated and are awaiting confirmation. There are 180 positions for which no nominee has even been submitted. The problem isn't the Senate here.
Re: (Score:3)
But it IS, a Federal Govt. run entity......that was the analogy, that we see the inefficiency of Federal bureaucracies, etc....and that I'm not sure I want the same type of DMV (or name any other type of federal/state govt type entity as a general example) in charge of my general health care.
Sheesh...didn't think I'd have to explain this much to this crowd.
Sure and I don't want my employer deciding which doctors I can and cannot see. I don't want to worry about whether I have to find a new doctor just because I find a new job. If you had any sort of chronic condition you'd likely worry about the same thing. A good friend of mine has to be incredibly careful when he looks for work because he was born with a congenital heart defect. He's incredibly smart and hard working but has limited options for work due to the cost of healthcare. It boggles my mind tha
Re:And these are the people.... (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And these are the people.... (Score:5, Informative)
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020... [foreignpolicy.com]
https://www.washingtonpost.com... [washingtonpost.com]
https://web.archive.org/web/20... [archive.org]
https://fortune.com/2020/02/26... [fortune.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Plenty of those in the 2-3 previous discussions on this topic that are still on the front page.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's see - one example, they've disbanded the global health security team because Trump decided it wasn't important to employ people who were needed at that moment.
LIAR WARNING! (Score:3)
Re:And these are the people.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, countries with exemplary universal health care systems are actually doing a very good job of containing the problem. One only need look at Singapore for what strong government intervention in a situation like this is good for. South Korea is testing anyone that feels like they need to be tested, for free.
The government's ostensible primary goal—the well being of its citizens, both at the individual and population level—are well aligned with running a healthcare system.
Industry's primary goal—turning a profit—definitely is NOT aligned with running a healthcare system. Sick people are paying people.
Re: (Score:2)
Singapore has more infected people than the US with 1/60th the population.
https://www.arcgis.com/apps/op... [arcgis.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Singapore's population density is 8137 people/sq km. The United States is 36. That'll really do a number on spread of flu. Also - when' we aren't testing many people, the infection rate in the US that is known is pretty meaningless.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a very handy site!
It also makes it clear that despite having more infections per capita, nobody has died in Singapore, and given how dense the city is, it's remarkable that there aren't more infections. Especially since a large number of the population is Chinese and the city would have normally seen a great deal of travel over the Lunar New Year.
Six people have died in the USA despite having fewer infections spread over a greater area, and a theoretically modern healthcare system that isn't run by t
Insightful? Have the mods gone crazy too? (Score:2)
Idiots! The CDC doesn't do healthcare! Government Medicare for All, even the Bernie plan which is the best of the EU combined ONLY DOES INSURANCE!
INSURANCE!
NOT!
HEALTHCARE!
As far as government failures, YOU elect failures who wreck things then instead of punishing them, you promote them to fix the mess they created because they bitch the loudest about how it's broken. You couldn't be a bigger fool.
Re: (Score:2)
Get a better government. Seriously. It seems to be unfit for the job.
Let's be honest here, it works in many countries in Europe. If one company can produce a product and another one cannot, the product isn't the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I trust the Federal Government with VERY little on anything....I pretty much want them to stick to their few, enumerated responsibilities per the US Constitution.
Other than that, I want them pretty much out of my life...my local gov is more answerable to me...and better since with such a large country as the US, one size does not fit all.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, but... (Score:2)
...and institutions officials are saying that we're wanting to put in charge of ALL our healthcare.
Yep...the Government always does best....
[rolls eyes]
While I share your sentiment about the effectiveness of government in general, I still think the CDC is getting a bit of a bad rap here, mainly because this whole damn thing is being overblown. Not only is this "epidemic" not an Ebola-kind of dangerous, it's not even a MERS kind of dangerous (MERS had, at times, a 1/3'rd fatality rate). COVID-19 is, as one epidemiologist put it, "A cold. Calm down".
Basically, the total effect on the human populace will be no worse than the usual assortment of winter bugs t
Re: (Score:2)
That's right. they really don't have any control now, because we don't have a national medical system. We have a lot of for-profit medical practices that are only available to those who can afford it. The outbreak in the US will be worse than in any other country.
Re: (Score:3)
Well, let's be honest, one political party does not believe in government, and wants it to fail so they can outsource it's functions to their rich friends. The other believes in government, does all it can to make it work, balances budgets, and upholds the rule of law.
Don't be surprised when the party of "shrink government until you can drown it in a bathtub" screws up government agencies to the point of being useless. That's what they want.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yep...the Government always does best....
[rolls eyes]
Oh in America a part of the CDC is representative of the entire government? Who knew!
[rolls eyes back at you]
We put people in charge who don't believe in gov't (Score:3)
We put people in charge of a process who want to tear down the process and act all surprised when the process gets torn down. Obama handled things just fine by putting experts in charge who believed in the process and competently executed their jobs.
Re:our VP is praying the virus away (Score:5, Insightful)
You should watch one of his team's press conferences instead of lying. They're quite informative.
Re: (Score:2)
You should watch one of his team's press conferences instead of lying. They're quite informative.
As long as you turn it off before the end when Trump comes on and contradicts everything the experts just said.
Re:our VP is praying the virus away (Score:5, Informative)
Here's Pence's press conference from yesterday: https://www.c-span.org/video/?... [c-span.org]
Where do you see them "praying the virus away"?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, any bullshit deserves being called bullshit.
And who preaches "tolerance"? My tolerance for adults who'd prefer superstition to reality is surprisingly low.
Re:our VP is praying the virus away (Score:5, Interesting)
Oddly, you ignore the simple fact that Mike Pence was surrounded by some of the top people in the country to work on such a problem - that they prayed for (I assume) guidance on this terribly important task they undertook is honestly a good thing in the eyes of many Americans.
Re:6% (Score:5, Informative)
91,320 global confirmed cases so far, resulting in 3,118 deaths and 48,166 recovered (as of this posting). Where are you getting your numbers from?
I'm getting mine from Johns Hopkins updated in real time as new cases are reported: https://www.arcgis.com/apps/op... [arcgis.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Just updated again: 92,156 global confirmed cases so far, resulting in 3,129 deaths and 48,166 recovered.
Re: (Score:3)
Well
(3118 dead/48116 recovered)*100 = 6.4%
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There are 106 cases of the novel coronavirus in the United States, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as state and local governments.
According to the CDC there are 48 cases from repatriated citizens. According to CNN Health’s tally of US cases that are detected and tested in the United States through US public health systems, there are 58 cases in 12 states. Bringing the total of coronavirus cases to 106.
This includes presumptive positive cases that tested positive in a public health lab and are pending confirmation from the CDC, and confirmed cases that have received positive results from the CDC.
Here's the state-by-state breakdown of the cases:
Arizona – 1
California – 20
Florida — 2
Illinois — 4
Massachusetts — 2
New York — 2
Oregon — 3
Rhode Island — 2
Washington state —18 (includes 6 fatalities)
Wisconsin — 1
New Hampshire — 1
Georgia — 2
You do the math...
Re: (Score:2)
3,118 deaths and 48,166 recovered (as of this posting). Where are you getting your numbers from?
I'll take a divide by symbol for $100 Jimmy!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
6% of what? Six dead people that had pre-existing medical conditions, making them more vulnerable to the virus in a country of 320 million is a far, far cry from 6% mortality rate. 16,000 people die each year from the common flu, I don't see airports shutting down annually during flu season.
Serious question, would this be as big a story if it wasn't a Presidential election year? If anyone other than Trump was President?
Take a look at the Swine Flu outbreak under the previous administration - it took 6 month
Re: (Score:2)
Serious question, would this be as big a story if it wasn't a Presidential election year?
It's not an election year in the rest of the world. Stick your head back in the sand.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah Americans, always looking at the tip of your nose and ignoring everything beyond.
2020/03/03 16:23:30 (GMT+1): 3129 deaths worldwide 48175 recovered, if you do some simple math you'll find out that (3129/48175)*100 will give you an answer of 6.49%.
Re: (Score:3)
You seem to have your numbers configured. 6 people died of roughly 100 American's that tested positive. That is 6% mortality. Now as you said the case is small enough here you can hand wave away that they had pre-existing medical condition regardless of whether that is true. Globally however mortality is still looking like 6% which is worse than the numbers China reported that we all knew were fudged. With million infected with influenza and a mortality rate of less than half a percent you can start to see
Re: (Score:2)
Hey 110010001000: why don't YOU fucking go out and write a website if you are so concerned that Slashdot isn't doing their job? Get a life.
Re: (Score:2)
It is true that the audience of Slashdot is probably not the one most heavily affected by the coronavirus. However, many other demographics are: the elderly, those not having access to good health care etc. It actually would be more narcissistic to keep posting about this if it mostly affected the kind of people that are the main Slashdot audience (I have no data on the audience, but it seems that mostly young-to-middle-aged people living in the western world, most typically in the US and covered either by
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I make six figures trashing websites, that's not only a difference, that's also a hobby.
Re: (Score:2)
Come on, this is slashdot, don't we have any tech news to bitch about? 7 Coronavirus stories on the front page is a bit much.
Why isn't there a story about Elon Musk inventing a coronavirus detector using a ::Cue::Cat, which he licensed to *pple to manufacture?
Hell, you don't even have a story about Woz[1][2] getting on social media blathering that his girlfriend was patient0 in the US [gizmodo.com], because the world orbits around rich old white male baby boomers.[3]
[1] mad respekt for what you could do with a 6502, but...
[2] typical argument from authority from someone outside of their area of expertise
[3] if the Birkenstock fits, you must wear it
Technically speaking, the Internet is a very large piece of real estate. There are other forums that might better suit your entertainment needs until this blows over.
As for me, I am interested in the COVID-19, especially the science/technical aspects of mitigation.
Also, I want to be informed about the move to telecommuting, cancellation of live events, be they tech conferences or others.
This is the story that's at the top of the list.
A suggestion:
Why not submit some news stories that you think are important