In Alarming Move, CDC Says People Exposed To COVID-19 Do Not Need Testing (arstechnica.com) 352
In a mindboggling and dangerous move, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention this week quietly reversed its recommendation on COVID-19 testing for those exposed to the virus. Now, the CDC says that exposed but symptomless people do not need to be tested. From a report: The change immediately alarmed and outraged public health and infectious disease experts. It is well established that SARS-CoV-2 -- the pandemic coronavirus that causes the disease COVID-19 -- can cause completely asymptomatic infections in some and spread from other infected people before they develop symptoms (so-called "pre-symptomatic transmission"). In fact, some modeling studies have suggested that pre-symptomatic transmission may account for nearly half, or even more, of SARS-CoV-2 spread.
That information previously spurred the CDC to recommend testing for anyone that was known to have -- or even suspected to have -- close contact with an infected person (that is, be within six feet for 15 or more minutes). "Testing is recommended for all close contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection," the agency said on its website as recently as August 22. "Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection be quickly identified and tested."
That information previously spurred the CDC to recommend testing for anyone that was known to have -- or even suspected to have -- close contact with an infected person (that is, be within six feet for 15 or more minutes). "Testing is recommended for all close contacts of persons with SARS-CoV-2 infection," the agency said on its website as recently as August 22. "Because of the potential for asymptomatic and pre-symptomatic transmission, it is important that contacts of individuals with SARS-CoV-2 infection be quickly identified and tested."
Credibility gone. (Score:5, Interesting)
Under this administration where every single person in senior management is scared of a midnight twitter shitpost that causes their lives to become hell, before being fired, does it really surprise anyone that integrity and credibility would be the sacrifice?
All the trolls are busy in Belarus? (Score:4, Interesting)
Glad to see the moderation has reverted to positive and the visibility of your FP has risen again.
However this is mostly a meta-comment on the overall discussion, which I reviewed after my initial comment. The thing that most struck me was the difficulty of finding any support of Trump. It was mostly a chorus of consensus with a few barely audible (visible) sour notes.
Where have all the usual trolls gone? Could they be busy with Belarus matters?
Seriously, I think it would be interesting to correlate the flows of trollage on Slashdot against Putin's most urgent concerns. If there is a troll army out there, their marching orders might be best revealed by their absences.
Re: (Score:3)
To answer your questions:
1) He was photographed in the front row for a Trump rally.
2) If he wanted to run away, he could have stayed away at his home 20 miles away.
To respond to your second post, the BLM protests are, in fact, protests in favor of an effective police force--that is, one that does not shoot first and ask questions later. If you are in favor of effective policing, then the state monopoly on violence should not have exceptions for retaliation against leftist violence.
Re: (Score:3)
I know it's a really hard chain to follow, but:
1. the Centers for Disease Control is a part of the Department for Health and Human Services.
2. The Department for Health and Human Services is a department of the United States Government, reporting to the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
3. The President of the United States is the chief administrator over the United States Government, and just so happens to be the boss of the Secretary of Health and Human Services.
Oh right, you're a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
Is that it?
I thought America was founded on the idea that being ruled by a king was a bad idea. Maybe things have changed.
Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Informative)
Update 8/26/2020 1:15pm: An unnamed official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has told CNN that the change to the agency's testing recommendations occurred under pressure from the upper ranks of the Trump Administration. "It's coming from the top down," the official said.
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Insightful)
In other words, because the Administration has fucked it up beyond all repair, now not only is information suppression required, but the suppression of even gathering information.
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Funny)
Not exactly a shock. I mean, maybe it's a tiny bit surprising the CDC would cave, but Trump has stated multiple times that our numbers would look a lot better if we'd just stop testing. I mean, anybody with half a brain cell understands the utter stupidity of that line of reasoning, but we're no longer dealing with a government filled with people that have half a brain cell. In fact, I'm pretty sure the entire spinal column and brain stem are completely absent.
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Insightful)
Stop attributing to incompetence what is best attributed to malice.
Now, now, let's be fair. It's entirely possible it's both.
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Insightful)
You just keep making those false equivalencies. I'm sure it will.work out quite nicely for the US to have infection rates hidden. Next I'm sure will come trying to obscure excess death statistics just like every precious Administration did... not
Re: (Score:2)
You just keep making those false equivalencies. I'm sure it will.work out quite nicely for the US to have infection rates hidden. Next I'm sure will come trying to obscure excess death statistics just like every precious Administration did... not
Hey, say what you want about Trump, he gets results. The infection rate is now down 75%. Now to destroy the post office before all those inconvenient ballots can be sent.
Re: (Score:3)
If given a 2nd term, he'll solve global warming by disbanding the EPA and NOAA, and integrating NASA into the Space Force!
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Give specific, sourced examples or shut the hell up. I am intolerant of your blatant lies you hypocritical asshole. Trump is pure garbage and nothing like any of the presidents who went before him. The absolute worst of them is better than Trump on his best day.
And the people who support him are even worse. Trump supporters are all weak, spineless traitors to the country, and enemies of democracy. You will all wear your support as a badge of shame for the rest of your lives. Be glad we are not like you: vin
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Insightful)
How is that any different then any other president in the last 50 years
For one, it has resulted in thousands of deaths.
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Informative)
How is that any different then any other president in the last 50 years.
How is that a valid justification for anything? Even if every President of the last 50 years engaged in the behavior you claim, the conclusion we should draw is that we need to demand a better President, not that we should accept the one we have who is actively engaging in that same behavior for personal and political gain.
Reminder: "but he started it!" is not a valid excuse for anything in life.
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Informative)
I can never understand people making this excuse. If you wouldn't accept that excuse from your children, why on earth would you accept it from elected officials?
We're supposed to be electing people to make the world we live in better, not shit all over it like angry, diaper-less toddlers on a coffee bender.
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Insightful)
No surprise here. He's been saying this for about a month now. [thehill.com]
It's like thinking your monthly bills will go down if you visit your mailbox less frequently... and this is who we have leading the country... and 42.1% of Americans actually think he's doing a decent job.
Ugh. I just can't with this timeline.
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this getting downmodded? From the perspective of trying to protect the health of the public, there is no—zero, none, nada—logical basis for this change. It is ONLY something that makes sense if there is outside influence at play. In fact, if you look at the URL for the article linked in the summary, you can see their original headline Ars used when publishing the article: CDC Loses Its Mind, Says People Exposed to COVID-19 Do Not Need Testing.
There are only two possibilities here: either the Center for Disease Control and Prevention really has lost its mind and has has abdicated its responsibility to prevent diseases—which is literally the mission spelled out in their name—or someone is pulling their strings from above. The former is highly unlikely, but if the latter is the reason for what we're seeing, we shouldn't be surprised to see a quote from an unnamed source with information like this one. It jibes entirely with what we're seeing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Oh, big shocker! (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Update 8/26/2020 1:15pm: An unnamed official with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has told CNN that the change to the agency's testing recommendations occurred under pressure from the upper ranks of the Trump Administration. "It's coming from the top down," the official said.
Which would be another own goal* from a Trump perspective because 8 weeks is more than enough time for another wave to show up not only in tests of symptomatic people, but in additional deaths as well.
* An "own goal" being a Trump action that eventually hurts his poll numbers by causing the deaths of thousands or tens of thousands of his constituents.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
you really think the republican party death cult cares? the daily death rate is comparable to five 737max crashes every day, but according to their leader it is what it is.
Re: (Score:3)
Just because the publisher didn't name the source, doesn't mean they don't know the source and their credibility. After all, there's no lack of evidence that there would be retaliation for blowing the whistle on this kind of shit.
The media tends to protect it's sources, otherwise it doesn't have sources.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the only legitimate way to respond to this story. Anonymous sources have low credibility.
OTOH, it's what I would have assumed without an internal leak, so my threshold for believing it it pretty low. It's quite consistent with public statements by Trump to the effect that high rates of COVID are caused by testing. (That one I did have a hard time believing. It's so incredibly stupid that I was sure it had to be a misquote. Wrong! [I'm not quoting him here, I'm paraphrasing multiple different sta
In the no-shit-Sherlock department... (Score:5, Informative)
This should come as no surprise to anyone, at this point. Your health is secondary to Trump's reelection campaign.
Everything's becoming propaganda (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Republicans are literally the stick in the bike spokes meme. They fuck up the systems of government and then point to failures and say "look, the government doesn't work!". Now we just wait for calls to privatize the CDC
Re: (Score:2)
s/privatize/abolish/
Followed shortly by shooting all the epidemiologists.
Re: (Score:2)
Somebody please point out a President who deserves "worst President in History" more than Professor Tinted J. Sharpie.
He's a short-term thinker, liar, lout, xenophobe, greedy, agitation-loving troll, and offends our top allies* while praising ruthless dictators.
We've had very greedy Presidents before, but they were at least mostly pleasant to the public and allies.
He makes Batman villains look harmless in comparison.
* If almost all of them don't want to spend 2%+ on their military, it's probably *us* with u
Why surprised? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Trump has been saying for awhile if we only tested less than other countries we'd be i better shape.
Yup, 'cause testing causes infections -- duh. :-)
Bias in the beginning... Then people wonder. (Score:2, Insightful)
The article and the summary start with absolutely biased language.
"In a mindboggling and dangerous move,"
Not even surprising, or unexpected "mindbogglingly dangers " because after all it is a forgone conclusion what they are saying makes no sense.
The thing is EVEN IF THE ARTICLE IS COMPLETELY CORRECT using language like this what causes people to mistrust most media sources because they make it obvious they are more interested in presenting an emotional diatribe then reporting on actual facts or truth.
Sad
Re:Bias in the beginning... Then people wonder. (Score:4, Informative)
The article and the summary start with absolutely biased language. "In a mindboggling and dangerous move,"
Not even surprising, or unexpected "mindbogglingly dangers " because after all it is a forgone conclusion what they are saying makes no sense. The thing is EVEN IF THE ARTICLE IS COMPLETELY CORRECT using language like this what causes people to mistrust most media sources because they make it obvious they are more interested in presenting an emotional diatribe then reporting on actual facts or truth.
Sad thing is this is so common place in all our news now, I like most people probably do , didn't hardly notice it until I was thinking about it.
The author of the article is a microbiologist who has been covering biomedical research for years. Here is her signature line, from the article:
Beth Mole
Beth is Ars Technica’s health reporter. She’s interested in biomedical research, infectious disease, health policy and law, and has a Ph.D. in microbiology.
Re:Bias in the beginning... Then people wonder. (Score:5, Informative)
The CDC is full of epidemiologists, not reporters who don't work in the field. Trust the scientists (the CDC).
I'll trust the scientists(the CDC). I won't trust the sock puppet account created today and has only posted in this thread (you).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The CDC is full of epidemiologists, not reporters who don't work in the field. Trust the scientists (the CDC).
That's who I do trust, and they said that they were forced to make this declaration by powers above, AKA Trump.
Hey, wait, where are you going? I wanted to find out if you still trusted the epidemiologists at the CDC! Come back!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At this point, for Trump supporters, the truth is damaging to his re-election bid, so therefore any such reporting is automatically "biased". The mind numbing stupidity and evil of Trump is only matched by the mind numbing stupidity and evil of his supporters
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying the word choice shows bias. It wouldn't make any difference what topic, or who used them ... the first sentence is intended to emotionally bias the information in the sentence rather then letting the reader judge the truth of the words. These type of techniques are used by both left and right commentators. ( I won't even call the journalist, as I'm not sure their are any of them still employed.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The article and the summary start with absolutely biased language. "In a mindboggling and dangerous move,"
Not even surprising, or unexpected "mindbogglingly dangers " because after all it is a forgone conclusion what they are saying makes no sense. The thing is EVEN IF THE ARTICLE IS COMPLETELY CORRECT using language like this what causes people to mistrust most media sources because they make it obvious they are more interested in presenting an emotional diatribe then reporting on actual facts or truth.
Sad thing is this is so common place in all our news now, I like most people probably do , didn't hardly notice it until I was thinking about it.
Honestly I just feel bad for the rank and file at the CDC. I was talking with a friend there yesterday after noticing that the infection numbers are declining much faster than I would expect given the basic lack of any change in US policy. If my understanding of what my friend said yesterday is correct then the Trump administration is making it much harder for people to get tested and numbers of tests has decreased dramatically but the positivity rate has not gone down. The US has cut the number of daily
Re:Bias in the beginning... Then people wonder. (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you advocating for Theocracy? Should Joe Biden, who by all accounts fits the definition of a "Practicing Catholic" make his administrative decisions based on his faith?
Re: (Score:2)
No he does not fit the definition of a practicing catholic, because he does not believe what Catholics are required to believe. In fact cannon law clearly states that 'assisting in abortion'.. which is should mean 'voting to enable it' , incurs automatic excommunication. Further it has been stated by multiple levels of the church hierarchy ( bishops all the way up to the Vatican) that catholic politicians who support abortion 'should refrain from taking communion'. The implication beings they are committi
Re: (Score:2)
If I was going to advocate for theocracy that would be a different discussion :)
Re: (Score:3)
Or calling Joe Biden a "practicing catholic" when he opposes key theological and moral positions of his supposed 'faith' and supporting policies that will shut down catholic schools and hospitals that stay stay true to a 1000 year old teaching .
At least he's probably opened a bible recently. Trump can't even figure out which way to hold it up as he's standing in front of a church for a photo op.
Re: (Score:2)
Trump doesn't claim to be a 'religious man' ... and for the record I think he is a creepy con man. On the other hand Joe Biden is as much or more of a con man for calling himself a Catholic when he is not. The difference is Mr. Biden is more believable. I would rather have an incompetent tyrant as president then a competent tyrant. The incompetent one will do less harm, because of his ineptitude. The competent one will carry out his Tyranny deftly and with deadly accuracy.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you believe Trump has done "less harm" due to his ineptitude? It looks like he degraded the US and the world's image of the US quite seriously. Not to mention those few hundred thousand deaths any competent leader would have minimized.
Re: (Score:2)
Another good example of biased language .. was there a news article with that somewhere.
it is everywhere all the time. That is why people have stopped trusting news sources and just live in their self selected bias bubble.
Re: (Score:2)
"Pointing out bias in a source isn't a valid logical argument against facts." nor was that my intent.
What i was saying is the OBVIOUS , unrepentant bias is what diminishes people trust in news sources. In part because while bias does not invalid fact, it often creates a narrative based on selective facts while ignoring others. Thus a intentionally and highly biased report is not trustworthy, because it lakes even attempted objectivity.
Trumpistan (Score:5, Insightful)
People will die because Trump wants to look good. Trump has equated more testing with more cases and more cases make Trump look bad. So testing has to go down.
More testing should lead to getting more people isolated which long term leads to less cases.
Welcome to Trumpistan where the idiot in chief makes irrational decisions that lead to death and suffering.
Re:Trumpistan (Score:5, Insightful)
People "will" die?
People already have. Lots of them. His response? "It is what it is."
Re: (Score:3)
No, Trump is supposed to prevent all death, like some Orange tinted Anakin Skywalker. The fact that even one innocent American died from the virus means the Orange One is a complete failure who wants as many people to die from this virus as possible.
Re: (Score:2)
People will die because Trump wants to look good. Trump has equated more testing with more cases and more cases make Trump look bad. So testing has to go down.
More testing should lead to getting more people isolated which long term leads to less cases.
Welcome to Trumpistan where the idiot in chief makes irrational decisions that lead to death and suffering.
More testing does equal more cases. That much is obvious to anyone that knows how to divide two numbers and is not absolutely blinded by their desire to use everything for political points.
This is Slashdot, I thought a basic understanding of math and percentages would be a given here...
Re: (Score:2)
The whole point of the article is that the command to reduce testing has come from outside the CDC from a political sources and the CDC is being forced into compliance against the science.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I do see something wrong with this.
The very purpose of contact tracing is to start with those who are known to be infected and find who they contacted. For each person who was contacted, find out if they are infected. If they are, repeat.
This guidance says "we don't care who you've contacted, as long as you don't feel sick."
It says "we're not doing contact tracing anymore. At least not with any credibility." It says "We don't care about preventing spread." It says "if you're sick, fine, but if you're n
Full quote of the CDC text (Score:5, Informative)
From https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov]
If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms:
You do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.
A negative test does not mean you will not develop an infection from the close contact or contract an infection at a later time.
You should monitor yourself for symptoms. If you develop symptoms, you should evaluate yourself under the considerations set forth above.
You should strictly adhere to CDC mitigation protocols, especially if you are interacting with a vulnerable individual. You should adhere to CDC guidelines to protect vulnerable individuals with whom you live.
Re: (Score:2)
A negative test does not mean you will not develop an infection from the close contact or contract an infection at a later time.
You should monitor yourself for symptoms. If you develop symptoms, you should evaluate yourself under the considerations set forth above
At which point you've infected an untold number of other people because your idiot governments haven't made you wear a mask.
Re: (Score:2)
A negative test does not mean you will not develop an infection from the close contact or contract an infection at a later time.
You should monitor yourself for symptoms. If you develop symptoms, you should evaluate yourself under the considerations set forth above
At which point you've infected an untold number of other people because your idiot governments haven't made you wear a mask.
The last line that I quoted refers to adhering to the CDC mitigation protocols, they can be found at the same link and are:
CDC Mitigation Protocols
CDC recommends the following measures to mitigate the spread of the virus and to protect vulnerable populations: social distancing, wearing a mask when social distancing is not possible, avoiding crowds, avoiding indoor crowded spaces, and washing or sanitizing hands frequently.
Re: (Score:3)
How do you know it's excellent guidance? What in particular about it do you see as "excellent"?
Re:Full quote of the CDC text (Score:5, Informative)
How do you know it's excellent guidance? What in particular about it do you see as "excellent"?
It's the best advice he's seen come from the CDC since he created that account 35 minutes ago.
Re: (Score:2)
It is contradicted by the other CDC page
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov]
which specifically says
If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms:
You do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.
You really think there's nothing wrong with this guidance? I'll be sure to stay fa
Re: (Score:2)
It is contradicted by the other CDC page
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov]
which specifically says
If you have been in close contact (within 6 feet) of a person with a COVID-19 infection for at least 15 minutes but do not have symptoms:
You do not necessarily need a test unless you are a vulnerable individual or your health care provider or State or local public health officials recommend you take one.
You really think there's nothing wrong with this guidance? I'll be sure to stay far away from you then.
There is no other CDC page linked, we're linking to the same page. The difference is that I quoted the full paragraph.
Re: (Score:2)
If you could read carefully, you'd see that TWO pages have been mentioned in this discussion.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov] link ends in "testing-overview.html"
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov] link ends in "testing.html"
Re: (Score:2)
Excellent guidance. There is zero wrong with that guidance. It is a shame how people have politicized this.
It's wrong because pre-symptomatic people are extremely contagious, and are responsible for a number of super-spreader events.
In fact, I suspect most symptomatic people are self-isolating or at least doing some extra distancing since anyone who feels sick is going to be thinking "COVID-19", so it's not hard to imagine that pre-symptomatic and asymtomatic people are driving much of the current outbreak.
Of course, I'm not going to convince you (gaxiyi7905 [slashdot.org]) because you're a new account with a random name who i
"Blanket Draconian Policy"? (Score:2)
That makes way more sense than a blanket draconian policy from the federal government.
Seriously, telling people that they must get tested if they have been in close contact with an infected individual for 15 minutes doesn't make sense and is federal overreach?
I guess you're one of the people that injected bleach when Trump said it sounded like a good idea.
I'll let the CDC have the last word (Score:2)
...because we are not really all that sure about asymptomatic transmission yet - from a scientific standpoint, only a few outlier situations have showed that can occur, but it may be the exception rather that the rule.
https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/arti... [cdc.gov]
https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
170,000 dead (Score:5, Insightful)
170,000 dead and republicans/conservatives don't care.
When a few terrorists sneak in they are willing to destroy whole nations and deport all muslim looking people after torturing them for information (Trump said it and they voted for him).
When a few people are murdered by illegal immigrants, conservatives want to eliminate all brown people en masse in revenge without regard to their ages, sexes and conditions. Yes, they do -- they haven't said it but you and I know that's what they want.
How many people have been murdered in the US by illegal immigrants or terrorists over the past 20 years? Probably a lot less than 170,000 .. so why are illegal immigrants and terrorists a concern to conservatives? This whole thing reveals that conservatives don't care about human life, they only care about feeling superior and wanting to oppress others. Come on, we are spending billions to build a wall and hardly anything to find a vaccine or treatment, think about that.
Re: (Score:2)
your number is already two weeks old.
Re: (Score:2)
of coarse they care but there are other thing to balance 38,000 die from care crashes 647,000 die from heart disease. So as a concern it is somewhere in the middle I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
of coarse they care but there are other thing to balance 38,000 die from care crashes
It's generally accepted that more people will die from car crashes if people don't wear seatbelts, which is why they are legally required. And yet conservatives/Republicans will fight tooth and nail not to wear masks, the covid version of seatbelts.
Re: (Score:3)
Hydroxychloroquine doesn't work as well as you think it does. Even if you believe the somewhat credible (though flawed) studies, it may have help a few percent of the victims. Also, does the rest of the world have a vendetta against Trump too? Why is it that no other countries are going headfirst into HCQ? Why isn't Russia? Why isn't India? They don't have people who can read studies? As for "experts" touting it .. you can find "experts" to tout any view you like from flat earth to demon sex. So you quot
Re: (Score:3)
Umm, they abandoned it .. try posting an up to date link: https://www.hindustantimes.com... [hindustantimes.com]
In other fantastic news... (Score:4, Funny)
Mod Parent Up for "1984" quote (Score:2)
Well done - you should have the full quote:
It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grammes a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grammes a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.
Duh (Score:2)
When the chief dotard thinks that increased testing causes increased cases, this isn't surprising. This is purely to knock the number of reported/recorded cases down so he can point to a downward trend line (they've already stacked the deck with changing the reporting mechanism for cases), and gambling that it'll be after November when the shitstorm really hits.
CNN is reporting the changes came from the top (Score:5, Informative)
Also Trump just put a former OAN reporter with no medical experience in a senior position at the FDA [salon.com]
Look, we've got active interference with scientists on the pandemic. We have open election interference via the post office and threats to send armed goons to poll watch. We had armed goons in camo pulling people into unmarked vans. We've got Bill Barr caught admitting it was being used to normalize a Federal Police [fark.com]. And there's the constant attacks on the validity of the election results and calls for a third term w/o amending the constitution.
At a certain point it's time to call a spade a spade. Trump is trying to set himself up as President For Life. Likely because he's afraid of Northeastern prosecutors going after him once he's out of office.
If Trump wins this year then America is no longer a Democracy. It's your call whether that happens or not.
Your call.
Wow, what a spin machine!! (Score:4, Insightful)
Gak, did anyone read the article?
1) CDC clearly says they didn't get pressure. Can you trust this, who knows, they would never say.
2) An "unnamed source" says it came from pressure from above. Can you trust this, who knows, but whenever any story says "unnamed source" I "untrust" it.
3a) Logic behind the no testing is the person might show a negative test because it might be too soon to have an infection show in the test. So they will be "ok" and then 2 days later they could get sick. Ok I can follow that.
3b) If that was the case is there an isolate order with that? (I think so) but where is the in 1-2 days get tested. That seems logical and maybe there is one.
Better solution: ignore the "spin stories" This is just political fodder from both sides.
Re: (Score:3)
This. What the fuck is going on in this thread? The freaking article says "if you get sick get tested" instead of "get tested every time you bump into a COVID person".
Meanwhile, top-level comments with "+5 Insightful" start with "People will die because Trump wants to look good."
What the actual fuck happened to Slashdot? It's always been somewhat political, but it at least used to be politically on topic.
Is "Fake News" Still a phrase? (Score:4, Interesting)
Unlike most of /.'s and Ars' readership I am a frontline healthcare worker who has to live this every day. Most of you have been cooped up at home the last several months and quite literally don't get out much because of it. So I know these kinds of alarmist headlines really get your pulse going.
But those guidelines are what we've been living this whole time. We are exposed to COVID positive patients every day. It is simply impossible to constantly test every single one of us every day. We do mandatory employee testing every two weeks and anyone who was determined to have had a high risk exposure is quarantined and tested. How is that determined? Well I'm not exactly sure on the details, we have an MD in charge of that. I'm not one but I trust his judgement.
Point is the CDC is absolutely right here. Its a practical impossibility to test everyone who has had an exposure. We just don't have the tests. And assuming you are being a good member of the community and wearing a proper mask all the time, and I don't mean one of those stylish cloth ones or one of those super thin neck socks that do nothing, but a real mask then you should be fine. We have to save the tests for the ones that the doctors determine were at high risk.
I don't know how many times I've been exposed to COVID at this point, too many to count. But I wear proper PPE, face shield, gloves and mask and I as well as my coworkers are very fastidious with cleaning the premises. We have to be. That's how these things go.
Let's stick with the facts (Score:4, Interesting)
* CDC changes coronavirus testing guidance; asymptomatic people no longer require test [foxnews.com]. Fox News is not a left wing new source. So this accurately describes what the CDC has done.
* This is dangerous because asymptomatic people can spread covid-19. [cnet.com] Also the article talks about asymptomatic versus presymptomatic.
* This article talks about the problems with testing [huffpost.com]. The summary is that an ER doc was exposed, was tested like 5 times, came up negative each time, her son who was only exposed to her got it. And some months later she got an antibody test which came up positive meaning she did have it. She had mild symptoms.
* Any asymptomatic person who has attempted to get the test recently can tell you that it is taking a long time to get results back and you have a wait a few days before that to get a test even.
* In a perfect world, we would have:
1) Testing capacity to provide rapid tests to anyone who wants one.
2) The tests will be very accurate.
* What we have:
1) Limited testing capacity - on demand rapid tests to healthcare professionals and those showing symptoms
2) The tests are merely accurate [pennmedicine.org]. Hard to get a concrete error rate. [google.com]
Could this be an attempt to take the load off the testing system, like the recommendation that masks were not necessary early on in this event, to retain them for healthcare workers and first responders? Or is a political effort independent of that?
I dunno.
Flip flop. Flip flop. (Score:3)
First we were told that masks were not necessary, then that everyone should wear a mask all the time, maybe forever. We were told we needed to "flatten the curve" by reducing contact with others for several weeks, then we were told to stay locked in a bubble until the virus is eradicated (through some unstated and certainly unknown means). We are exhorted by politicians to "follow the science" even though the highly politicized directions the public receives are from bureaucrats who are not sure what they want us to do. The CDC is a mess. I have no problem with them changing their minds about what we should do; new data can cause a change in direction. But they should explain why they gave us the original instructionsand why they changed their minds. They have not done this so far and, as a result, have no credibility left with the public. They need to clear out all the career bureaucrats and public health weenies in the CDC and start over again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You don't have a credible source indicating the administration did anything.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Must be a very comfy hole you're sticking your head into.
Re: "media" think they are Trump now? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, because I'm sure someone at the CDC wants their career flushed due to blowing the whistle on this shit and not having the media protect their identity, just to placate you.
Do you really think it's a low probability that the administration wouldn't try to suppress testing in any and all ways possible in order to drive down numbers? Do you similarly think it improbable that they wouldn't retaliate against someone who leaks it to the press?
Please get serious.
Re:"media" think they are Trump now? (Score:4, Funny)
What insiders? What are their names? You guys really believe everything that is written? You guys know the people that write these stories are just people making like $20 an hour.
And how much an hour are you making? Just asking, since your account was only created 33 minutes ago.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Tesing isn't accurate (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
It is fairly obvious at this point that *you* have an axe to grind and that I should stop listening to *you*.
Re: (Score:2)
Two different pages.
Your page: https://www.cdc.gov/coronaviru... [cdc.gov]
does list people who have had contact as consideration for who should get tested.
The other page: https://www.cnn.com/2020/08/26... [cnn.com]
*specifically* calls out people with contact but no symptoms as *NOT* needing a test.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems to me that GP's point could be: don't be boggled by this news, it's exactly what we would expect from insane people such as those who CONTROL the CDC, i.e. the Trump administration.
Re: (Score:2)
Not quite.
If the insurance companies can't prove I suffered a COVID-19 infection, then there's no preexisting condition for them to deny me healthcare when I get brain damage from that infection.
Two possibilities (Score:5, Insightful)
1) The CDC has given up fighting for more testing resources and has decided the best use of the limited testing capacity available is getting test results to symptomatic people in a reasonable time frame ( 2) The CDC has given in to political pressure to "slow down the testing". This will artificially slow down the (already underestimated) official infection rate numbers, but won't affect the hospitalization or death numbers, so I don't know how much of a political "win" it is for the administration.
Re: Two possibilities (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That could be true, but I don't see how the 30,000 ft view of the stats lead to that conclusion. As mobility has increased, deaths and hospitalizations have remained low.
Re: (Score:3)
so you are okay with almost 200000 coronavirus deaths but you have been very angry about another virus a few years ago even though it has resulted in just four deaths in the usa
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]