You're correct and have edited my post to reflect that.
Peak of the virus
- Thread starter elacsaplau
- Start date
My sister in law and her partner have the virus. Thankfully neither currently candidates for hospitalisation. He’s pulling out of and has been told he won’t get a test now. She’s 4 days waiting for a test but has been told now she won’t be tested. So they are not in the numbers, will have no contact tracing done and she certainly didn’t take enough precautions (went shopping/jogging etc) while he was waiting his test.
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
How do they know they have the coronavirus in the absence of testing?
elacsaplau
Registered User
- Messages
- 892
Hi DeeKie.
I, also, haven't a clue what to make of the numbers.
Remember once it was suggested that circa 40% of the overall population could get it.
Now, when we test those who really need to be tested, the percentage of these people who have the virus is c. 5% (i.e. 250/5,000)?
I'm also struggling with the "rate of increase in new cases (as a % of total cases) is decreasing" line. Isn't this just math given a fixed number of tests and a relatively consisted number of positives of those tested?
I, also, haven't a clue what to make of the numbers.
Remember once it was suggested that circa 40% of the overall population could get it.
Now, when we test those who really need to be tested, the percentage of these people who have the virus is c. 5% (i.e. 250/5,000)?
I'm also struggling with the "rate of increase in new cases (as a % of total cases) is decreasing" line. Isn't this just math given a fixed number of tests and a relatively consisted number of positives of those tested?
The scientist confirmed last night that we are only testing 1,500 per day for the last week. We got 324 positive cases yesterday or 21%? This is too high as I think WHO confirmed that positive results should amount from 3% to 15%. Anything above this means you aren't testing enough. As a result of this it is difficult to ascertain where we are at. We have to get back on top of this really.
For me it has come to the stage that the only figures that matter are the number of deaths and the ICU capacity.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,184
Hi elacs
They said yesterday that since the introduction of the new criteria, the positive test figure has increased to 15% from 6%.
Brendan
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,184
This gives a rough measure of how successful the containment measures are.
Imagine we had 100,000 infected people and 1,000 new cases per day. That would be a 1% rate of infection which would probably be less than the rate of recovery.
If we have 1,000 cases with 500 new cases, it means that it's spreading very fast.
But if we are testing only 5,000 a day, then the numbers would not be that reliable.
Presumably we are testing only the most likely suspects?
Brendan
Not exactly - the focus of the testing is on healthcare workers and those in vulnerable groups or if you have had close contact with a confirmed case.
If you have the symptoms of the virus but are not in those groups, you are not being tested - at least according to the guidelines issued last week.
Given that community transmission accounts for 50% of infections, there's a significant number of likely cases out there not being tested.
Now maybe not all the people with the symptoms actually have the virus, but I expect there is an algorithm out there which will say that's 50% or 80% or whatever of that large group of people. I haven't seen any figures circulated for how many people that is, based on GP phone consultations, even to an approximate %.
I do think number of folks in ICU/spare capacity in ICU is the main indicator to watch, as this is the thing that will directly affects mortality rate.
But again, the problem, is that this number is a trailing indicator, and less useful to make policy decisions on (people only turn up in ICU a week or more after being infected).
Numbers from testing, even if not perfectly representative, are better than no numbers. As it allows us to at model at least some of the likely ICU needs.
elacsaplau
Registered User
- Messages
- 892
What? Is this for real? Seriously?
Three days ago, Anne O'Connor, COO of the HSE, said that we are currently testing 5,000 cases per day. Two weeks ago, Harris said that we needed to ramp up testing to 15,000 per day. Where is the 1,500 coming from and why is the figure so low?
How many da
Last night's HSE report live .One of the scientists or doctors said we are testing up to 1700 per day . I don't know where everyone is getting 5000 out of
The testing is becoming a farce though. Surely they can model off daily demand for ICU beds? As you said people turn up to ICU a week or so after infection so this figure gives a representation of the state of play a week or so previous. As the virus is doubling every 3/4 days they can then project that figure forward to get a current state of play?
In fairness I'm sure they are probably doing something similar in the background to get a more accurate figure for basis their decisions on. Well I hope so!
What is also becoming more and more frustrating is our so called journalists at the press conferences. If they actually did a bit of "journalism" in advance of the briefings they could ask better questions. You can even see the doctors getting annoyed with them and their questions.
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
Latest on the testing figures.
“Dr Cillian De Gascun, chair of the HSE’s Coronavirus Expert Advisory Group, confirmed that 30,213 tests had been carried out but that constraints relating to testing has meant delayed results for some people.
Dr De Gascun said “significant constraints at a global level” relating to supply issues, including supply of laboratory reagents, has meant prioritising hospitalised patients and healthcare workers for testing for Covid-19.
“Unfortunately there will be an awful lot of people in the community who will have been waiting maybe seven to 10 days for a result,” said Dr De Gascun.
“That was obviously unanticipated and it is unfortunate but doesn’t really change our plan of ramping up testing over the coming weeks to achieve between 10,000 and 15,000 test per day,” he said.
Last week, health officials decided to change the case definition for Covid-19 tests, narrowing down the focus on particular groups.
Dr De Gascun said this evening that since the case definition changed, the positivity rate had risen from 6% to 15% for those tested in the past seven days. “That’s one of the things we were trying to achieve, by changing the case definition, was to ensure we were testing the right people,” he said.
Emphasis mine
“Dr Cillian De Gascun, chair of the HSE’s Coronavirus Expert Advisory Group, confirmed that 30,213 tests had been carried out but that constraints relating to testing has meant delayed results for some people.
Dr De Gascun said “significant constraints at a global level” relating to supply issues, including supply of laboratory reagents, has meant prioritising hospitalised patients and healthcare workers for testing for Covid-19.
“Unfortunately there will be an awful lot of people in the community who will have been waiting maybe seven to 10 days for a result,” said Dr De Gascun.
“That was obviously unanticipated and it is unfortunate but doesn’t really change our plan of ramping up testing over the coming weeks to achieve between 10,000 and 15,000 test per day,” he said.
Last week, health officials decided to change the case definition for Covid-19 tests, narrowing down the focus on particular groups.
Dr De Gascun said this evening that since the case definition changed, the positivity rate had risen from 6% to 15% for those tested in the past seven days. “That’s one of the things we were trying to achieve, by changing the case definition, was to ensure we were testing the right people,” he said.
Emphasis mine
I only know about one of the labs, but the staff they had rostered to work on Sunday spent the day on their phones as there was nothing outstanding at that point.
Brendan Burgess
Founder
- Messages
- 52,184
I don't see the point in collecting the sample if they don't have the lab capacity to analyse it.
By the time someone
1) Orders a test
2) Has the swab taken
3) Gets the results
They could well be fully recovered.
In fact , they with a delay between the ordering of the test and taking the swab, they could have recovered.
Brendan
By the time someone
1) Orders a test
2) Has the swab taken
3) Gets the results
They could well be fully recovered.
In fact , they with a delay between the ordering of the test and taking the swab, they could have recovered.
Brendan
From what I'm hearing, they're very deliberately focusing the priority group, and on ICU demand and those likely to place demands on the system to allow them model and plan the response. So with the tighter criteria around who gets tested, they fully expected the positive test rate to rise significantly.
Those with milder symptoms who were testing positive were not being admitted to hospital, and were being asked to self-isolate. Well, that's the same advice being given to anyone who thinks they might be ill. So from a system/ resourcing point of view, it makes sense not to test, but you end up relying on people being responsible.
Sophrosyne
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,543
The intention was and still is to test as many suspected cases as possible.
But like every other country we encountered a supply problem, which caused the change in case definition.
This will be widened as supplies become more available.
But like every other country we encountered a supply problem, which caused the change in case definition.
This will be widened as supplies become more available.
This is exactly it.There are significant shortages of testing kits etc currently at a global level. Therefore the current strategy is to limit the number of those being tested to those showing highly indicative symptoms, those in the high risk categories and medical staff who are in constant contact with those who are contagious.
This consistent panic/bashing about the numbers of tests being performed/% of positive results lack any alternate solutions to the current one.
We are currently at the highest level of lockdown we can realistically maintain over any significant time period which will be interfering with community transmission in the general population and the advice has not changed from day one. If you think you’re sick then you self isolate, if your symptoms are severe enough you will be admitted to hospital and you will appear in the stats. Otherwise as has been said repeatedly the only numbers of any real concern currently are the admissions/ICU total/death rate.
It would be ideal to know all factors, but given the restrictions we are working under this is still the best strategy... in my humble opinion.