This is a serious public health threat. The fact that this virus has caused severe illness and sustained person-to-person spread in China is concerning, but it’s unclear how the situation in the United States will unfold at this time. The risk to individuals is dependent on exposure. At this time, some people will have an increased risk of infection, for example healthcare workers caring for 2019-nCoV patients and other close contacts. For the general American public, who are unlikely to be exposed to this virus, the immediate health risk from 2019-nCoV is considered low.
在CDC的数据更新里，有一个很可怕的备注： ‡ Excludes those with contact to a known case. 也就是说，跟已知确诊病例有过紧密接触的人，不会去进行测试。就算测试了，也不会向公众汇报。所以美国永远不会出现人传人的结果。 而且据传闻，跟武汉没有关联的人，比如上海人，就算出现了武汉肺炎的症状，CDC不同意进行测试。
在CDC的数据更新里，有一个很可怕的备注： ‡ Excludes those with contact to a known case. 也就是说，跟已知确诊病例有过紧密接触的人，不会去进行测试。就算测试了，也不会向公众汇报。所以美国永远不会出现人传人的结果。 而且据传闻，跟武汉没有关联的人，比如上海人，就算出现了武汉肺炎的症状，CDC不同意进行测试。
在CDC的数据更新里，有一个很可怕的备注： ‡ Excludes those with contact to a known case. 也就是说，跟已知确诊病例有过紧密接触的人，不会去进行测试。就算测试了，也不会向公众汇报。所以美国永远不会出现人传人的结果。 而且据传闻，跟武汉没有关联的人，比如上海人，就算出现了武汉肺炎的症状，CDC不同意进行测试。
在CDC的数据更新里，有一个很可怕的备注： ‡ Excludes those with contact to a known case. 也就是说，跟已知确诊病例有过紧密接触的人，不会去进行测试。就算测试了，也不会向公众汇报。所以美国永远不会出现人传人的结果。 而且据传闻，跟武汉没有关联的人，比如上海人，就算出现了武汉肺炎的症状，CDC不同意进行测试。
在CDC的数据更新里，有一个很可怕的备注： ‡ Excludes those with contact to a known case. 也就是说，跟已知确诊病例有过紧密接触的人，不会去进行测试。就算测试了，也不会向公众汇报。所以美国永远不会出现人传人的结果。 而且据传闻，跟武汉没有关联的人，比如上海人，就算出现了武汉肺炎的症状，CDC不同意进行测试。 silverblade 发表于 1/30/2020 12:14:18 AM
This is a serious public health threat. The fact that this virus has caused severe illness and sustained person-to-person spread in China is concerning, but it’s unclear how the situation in the United States will unfold at this time. The risk to individuals is dependent on exposure. At this time, some people will have an increased risk of infection, for example healthcare workers caring for 2019-nCoV patients and other close contacts. For the general American public, who are unlikely to be exposed to this virus, the immediate health risk from 2019-nCoV is considered low.
在CDC的数据更新里，有一个很可怕的备注： ‡ Excludes those with contact to a known case. 也就是说，跟已知确诊病例有过紧密接触的人，不会去进行测试。就算测试了，也不会向公众汇报。所以美国永远不会出现人传人的结果。 而且据传闻，跟武汉没有关联的人，比如上海人，就算出现了武汉肺炎的症状，CDC不同意进行测试。
Did anyone read this CNBC Op-ed by a former commissioner of FDA? https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/26/op-ed-we-need-to-prepare-for-us-outbreak-of-wuhan-coronavirus.html "Right now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a test that works by detecting parts of the virus’ genome in the blood. CDC is working with the Food and Drug Administration to make this type of test more widely available to public health labs throughout the U.S. The agencies are working to advance the test under an authorization for emergency use. This is a regulatory designation that accelerates the normal FDA clearance process during public health emergencies. The CDC test is fast. It can diagnose a sample in a few hours once a blood specimen reaches a designated lab. The test is likely to be given primarily to state and local public health laboratories. But to adopt more widespread surveillance and diagnosis, we may need a diagnostic that’s more readily accessible to providers on the front line of response. This includes tests that can be used right in the doctor’s office, clinics, and hospitals – or even at ports of entry." So it seems the bottleneck is the turnover rate from reference lab. The author later suggests two approach to develop on-the-point technology for diagnose to speed up screening at the port of entry "One approach is based on the use of antibodies that adhere to parts of the virus that contribute to its symptoms called antigens. If virus is present, the antibodies bind to these viral antigens and produce a chemical reaction that signals the presence of an infection.Once a coronavirus is identified in a sick patient, doctors could then rely on more sophisticated tests done in public health and reference labs to confirm whether it’s the Wuhan strain. Another approach, using platforms like GeneXpert, can rapidly amplify and detect specific parts of viral RNA. These tests are based on a self-contained machine that’s widely used to test for things like hepatitis C. It was also used to screen for Ebola virus. Bringing more of these capabilities to the point of care can improve surveillance and diagnosis."
"Right now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a test that works by detecting parts of the virus’ genome in the blood. CDC is working with the Food and Drug Administration to make this type of test more widely available to public health labs throughout the U.S. The agencies are working to advance the test under an authorization for emergency use. This is a regulatory designation that accelerates the normal FDA clearance process during public health emergencies.
The CDC test is fast. It can diagnose a sample in a few hours once a blood specimen reaches a designated lab. The test is likely to be given primarily to state and local public health laboratories. But to adopt more widespread surveillance and diagnosis, we may need a diagnostic that’s more readily accessible to providers on the front line of response. This includes tests that can be used right in the doctor’s office, clinics, and hospitals – or even at ports of entry."
So it seems the bottleneck is the turnover rate from reference lab.
The author later suggests two approach to develop on-the-point technology for diagnose to speed up screening at the port of entry
"One approach is based on the use of antibodies that adhere to parts of the virus that contribute to its symptoms called antigens. If virus is present, the antibodies bind to these viral antigens and produce a chemical reaction that signals the presence of an infection.Once a coronavirus is identified in a sick patient, doctors could then rely on more sophisticated tests done in public health and reference labs to confirm whether it’s the Wuhan strain.
Another approach, using platforms like GeneXpert, can rapidly amplify and detect specific parts of viral RNA. These tests are based on a self-contained machine that’s widely used to test for things like hepatitis C. It was also used to screen for Ebola virus. Bringing more of these capabilities to the point of care can improve surveillance and diagnosis." xinlaide 发表于 1/30/2020 1:05:56 AM
"Right now, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a test that works by detecting parts of the virus’ genome in the blood. CDC is working with the Food and Drug Administration to make this type of test more widely available to public health labs throughout the U.S. The agencies are working to advance the test under an authorization for emergency use. This is a regulatory designation that accelerates the normal FDA clearance process during public health emergencies.
The CDC test is fast. It can diagnose a sample in a few hours once a blood specimen reaches a designated lab. The test is likely to be given primarily to state and local public health laboratories. But to adopt more widespread surveillance and diagnosis, we may need a diagnostic that’s more readily accessible to providers on the front line of response. This includes tests that can be used right in the doctor’s office, clinics, and hospitals – or even at ports of entry."
So it seems the bottleneck is the turnover rate from reference lab.
The author later suggests two approach to develop on-the-point technology for diagnose to speed up screening at the port of entry
"One approach is based on the use of antibodies that adhere to parts of the virus that contribute to its symptoms called antigens. If virus is present, the antibodies bind to these viral antigens and produce a chemical reaction that signals the presence of an infection.Once a coronavirus is identified in a sick patient, doctors could then rely on more sophisticated tests done in public health and reference labs to confirm whether it’s the Wuhan strain.
Another approach, using platforms like GeneXpert, can rapidly amplify and detect specific parts of viral RNA. These tests are based on a self-contained machine that’s widely used to test for things like hepatitis C. It was also used to screen for Ebola virus. Bringing more of these capabilities to the point of care can improve surveillance and diagnosis." xinlaide 发表于 1/30/2020 1:05:56 AM
在CDC的数据更新里，有一个很可怕的备注： ‡ Excludes those with contact to a known case. 也就是说，跟已知确诊病例有过紧密接触的人，不会去进行测试。就算测试了，也不会向公众汇报。所以美国永远不会出现人传人的结果。 而且据传闻，跟武汉没有关联的人，比如上海人，就算出现了武汉肺炎的症状，CDC不同意进行测试。
🔥 最新回帖
这才是蹊跷。。。
总统在川粉眼里做什么都是对的。
可西雅图确诊到现在都有两周了吧。。。潜伏期都过了。。。那些有症状的估计都是轻微的，自己好了
🛋️ 沙发板凳
现在紧张一点，动作快一点，避免疫情爆发，显然是最好的策略。搞不懂那个医生的脑回路。紧张一点又不会死人。故作镇定反而真的会死很多人。在发达国家里，这一次防疫美国是最迟缓最无所谓的。
测试这么慢，假如感染的人多了，没法及时知道及时治疗。被隔离的人也没法及时解除隔离。这样发展下去，反而会有恐慌。因为大家不知道真实情况。知道的只是测试速度。
连泰国都可以快速测试快速确诊。堂堂第一帝国，生物医药最发达的美国，居然做不到快速测试。我不知道到底是哪儿出了问题。
就是，疫情预警false positive 比false negative强的多，武汉就是前车之鉴
美国医疗器械，基因测试，都是极其发达的，比中国日本德国发达多了。美国投在生物和医疗上的钱是全世界其他国家的总和。中国相关的优秀人才都是从美国输送过去的。结果这个病毒测试，却慢得跟蜗牛似的。搞不懂啊。
这是CDC网页上对新冠状病毒的介绍，认为这个病毒对中国影响大，但不会对美国产生影响
This is a serious public health threat. The fact that this virus has caused severe illness and sustained person-to-person spread in China is concerning, but it’s unclear how the situation in the United States will unfold at this time. The risk to individuals is dependent on exposure. At this time, some people will have an increased risk of infection, for example healthcare workers caring for 2019-nCoV patients and other close contacts. For the general American public, who are unlikely to be exposed to this virus, the immediate health risk from 2019-nCoV is considered low.
应该不是cdc检测的慢，而是某种原因消息不及时放出来。也许是在follow什么特殊的protocol。联想到撤侨，别的国家都是专机接走然后马上检测出结果，美国简直是hbo剧的节奏，先放出来sfo当烟雾弹，然后ontario机场也是号称提前一周开始准备，最后给飞到军事基地去了。
CDC的网页上说，他们已经开发好了测试技术
在CDC的数据更新里，有一个很可怕的备注：
‡ Excludes those with contact to a known case.
也就是说，跟已知确诊病例有过紧密接触的人，不会去进行测试。就算测试了，也不会向公众汇报。所以美国永远不会出现人传人的结果。
而且据传闻，跟武汉没有关联的人，比如上海人，就算出现了武汉肺炎的症状，CDC不同意进行测试。
这个很恐怖呀。。。
cdc这么做是为啥呢？
我看了这个备注也很困惑
还有一个备注说pending里只包括已经采样要检测的。
那符合什么标准才可以采样呢？
只能自己保护自己了。过个一年半载，疫苗肯定就出来了。但是得保证自己在那之前不感染。感染了要花很多钱治疗，还有可能弄个肺损伤，亏大了。我隐隐有种感觉，CDC这么拖延，可能是要照顾医院的生意。也照顾疫苗生产商的生意。没有病人，医院不好赚钱。不死一些人，大家不会积极去打疫苗，疫苗生产商就算弄出疫苗也会亏本。美国这些公众健康机构已经被医药资本渗透和腐蚀了。虽然总统和议员是民众选举出来的。但是政府里面的这些职能机构，根本不需要对公众负责。
在卖股票
搞笑的吧你？总统IPMEACH跟CDC测试速度挂上钩了？
我突然明白了那个“扫地僧医”发“慌什么”视频的逻辑了。美国是资本主义社会，医生就怕没有病人。病人越多越好。病人多了，只有出高价的人才有机会治疗，医生会赚得更多。要是疫情早早就被掐断了，医生会少很多生意。
2009猪流感的时候有过这种新闻：
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/business/2010/jun/04/swine-flu-experts-big-pharmaceutical
不至于吧，有点想多了，爆发了对他们没好处
对医生是有好处的。美国跟中国不同，美国不能强迫医生接诊。如果医疗资源紧张，医生可以涨价，医生可以不接受保险，怎么对医生有利就可以怎么来。
我阴谋论一下，因为美国某些人口密集的地区，根本没有人力物力处理这种危机，所以压而不报，最后死的都算流感身上，完美甩锅
想不到还真有这样的新闻。太可惜了。美国虽然科技发达，但也有非常丑陋腐朽的一面。现在我理解CDC为什么那么磨蹭，为什么downplay武汉肺炎风险的原因了。真的是故意的。
对，这个我完全不能理解。以加拿大为例，第2例是第1例的老婆，算是紧密接触，那么如果按照cdc的标准的话，就只有第1例算，第二个不能算进数据里面了？
我小孩的老师也说了
不要惊慌
it is so far away
真的假的？隔壁还有说自我隔离的也不算的
歧视sh人
//joking
疫苗肯定早就有了，只是看什么时间发布。
搞什么
德国🇩🇪和日本🇯🇵就是社会主义了？
你还真说着了。。。。。
隔壁有一个视频，视频里说，家庭里的传染率是83%
往好处想，是不浪费试剂，lg得了，基本上，lp也要得
哦哦哦……
人家是全民医保是吧？
诶，有可能的哦
大陆不是全民医保了吗？
就你这样说也对，🇨🇦也快的，嗯，有道理的
真是张口就来，疫苗哪那么快？
谢辟谣
医药和医疗行业，在德国和日本没有形成垄断性势力
一千个一万个理由，事实就是测试样品超级慢。德国和日本能做到的事，美国也应该可以做到。时间不等人。最有效的遏制疫情发展的窗口期很快就过去了。
要是这几万个人里面，有几个感染者，不敢想象。但愿武汉万家宴的悲剧不要重演。CDC效率这么低，现在我只能期待这个病毒到了美国水土不服，杀伤力和传染力下降。但这只是我一厢情愿的期待。
握手🤝我今天也发现这个了，所以特别好奇他们到底是不是只测那些去过武汉的且出现症状的？再有就是二次传染的这种他们不测当然就不会有人传人出现。我看法和你一致。
这图有意思了，29号更新加上了除外密切接触者的注释，27号那时还没有，所以CDC这样的操作是为了什么？
CDC有病吧
在哪里说的要准备supply？之前错过了，可以给个链接吗？
撤侨这个桥段， 确实是美国的最骚。
你没发现这种帖子一般那些个ID不会来的
这个图表引用一下。 看看礼拜五怎样。 我们这里的两例疑似一直还在等消息。
CDC真是和武汉狗官有的一拼。电话打了也没有用。 真是气死了。
会不会只传染黄种人?不传白人?
从纯技术的角度说 美国的生物技术比日本德国英国都落后， 但是美国人口众多 地大物博 力量总和最大
再说 美国速度就从来没有超过日本德国。
你的真的不懂历史啊
有没有搞错？看看NIH还有风险投资投了多少钱在生物医药行业。生物医药，日本德国跟美国的差距，就跟信息产业的差距一样大
怕记者采访
这些媒体都是跟着CDC走。CDC说什么，它们就说什么。美国也有一些专家说这个病毒很危险。但是媒体不听。
记者真要是参访这些撤回来的人，美国民众一下子就知道这个病毒多么危险了。现在的美国，只看数据，不看真正发生的悲剧。数据的收集和处理很容易被人为操纵。
政府都是腐败的。美国和中国最大的不同之处在于，在中国民众必须听政府安排，而在美国民众可以自己行动发声。很多华人到了美国后，依然喜欢听政府的，叫大家不要紧张不要行动。
很多人说，要听专家的。专家是最误事的。无论哪个国家，为政府工作的专家一定会跟你说，可防可控，哪怕明天世界末日了，也会这么说。专家能混上去，关键不是靠业务能力强，而是靠自信满满，看起来很“专家”很有控制感，好像什么都能搞掂。最后搞定搞不定对他们来说根本没关系，因为钱和名已经到手了。
专家不从你这儿拿钱。专家不是对你负责的。支持专家的，是药厂和医院的资金。专家是对他们负责的。看看床铺开会的那一窝子专家，全是白人，没一个人真的知道中国发生了什么。都是对着数据坐在办公室里编故事。我们不一样，我们有亲人和朋友在中国，我们真切地知道病毒多么危险多么严重地扰乱了正常生活。保护自己，保护家人，指望别人是不行的。
这个有什么办法改变吗？ 有别的部门能监督他们吗？ 被你们分析他们就是在等死人的case？
开玩笑的吧？
撤侨放烟雾弹是因为减少社会恐慌？
主要是给CDC施加压力。现在日本已经13例，澳大利亚8例。美国却只有5例。中美的客流是最大的，美国对疫区来的人要求是最马虎的，感染的人只会更多，不可能少。我们不怕确诊的人数上去。最怕的是已经感染了的人，没有及时确诊，到处乱串，造成疫情失控。
re，对CDC真是太失望了，和湖北那些官老爷没有一点区别
其他都同意，但是你说中美客流比中日大，这个不同意中日航班吞吐量大概在年2000w人次
中美只有800w
因为生物千老都改行写代码了？ 之后生化会不会吃香回来？
这次发现中美两国的人都很喜欢盲目乐观，希望美国继续随机改动计划，3天改成14
我本来以为我在偏僻的中西部，会比较安全。事实根本不是。就连犹他这种穷乡僻壤的地方，疑似病例都已经遍布全州了。问题是CDC就是不及时测量出结果。你看这个新闻。形势不容乐观。要知道中国在月初的时候，也不过是四十几个病例。现在看看已经多少了。
In a press conference Wednesday, State Epidemiologist Dr. Angela Dunn said they can’t release specific numbers, but the cases they’re evaluating have been spread throughout the state.
https://fox13now.com/2020/01/29/utah-student-tested-for-novel-coronavirus-after-returning-from-china-sick/
美国跟中国一样，信息也是不透明的。现在我对美国政府已经失望了。疫情大规模爆发看来是早晚的事。妈的，今天晚上屯粮屯水。谁能坚持到疫苗出来的那一天，谁就是胜利。
手动点个赞， 即有概况总结， 又有行动方案。
同意。CDC出工不出力，肯定有资本的渗透和腐蚀。现在WHO已经宣布紧急状态。希望CDC不要再隐瞒拖延了。