Actual infection count is probably far higher than 8M, isn't it? That's just number of positive tests.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/cases-updates/comm...
(fyi: they bury the lede on this page: you have to click through to their horribly slow interactive viewer widget to see the multiples.)
Earlier this week we took my son in because:
1. Our neighbors have recently recovered from Coronavirus
2. Our son had a cold / fever around the same time lasting several days
3. He had several days of diarrhea after the cold symptoms subsided
I talked to my coworker whose wife is a doctor and he relayed the symptoms to her and she said it very well could be a mild coronavirus infection.
We weren't concerned for his health because he's handled it just fine, but we figured it would be good to know in terms of avoiding spreading it to other people.
So we called and set up an appointment. They got us in like an hour and half after we called.
Got there and the doctor said, "Nope, no need for a test."
At this point I'm extremely skeptical that the number counts are in any way accurate. Also I've lost faith in the "we're not doing enough testing" argument since we went and tried to get tested and they turned us away.
That does not imply that there is enough testing. That just implies that your doctor or health care system is unwilling to test someone in your circumstances. "Not doing enough testing" is not referring to just test kids not being available, it is also referring to health system policies and willingness/unwilingness to test people.
We attempted to get tested and they said no, not worth the bother.
That seems contradictory to me.
Japan did very little testing and has a relatively low death rate so far.
If you're in an area where neither of those things apply then, for a child a test isn't going to change anything. It's not going to change their treatment. If it's positive they'll tell you to isolate, but if it's negative, there's a high enough false negative rate, and there are enough cases that it's still very likely they have it, so you'll still want to treat it like they do.
Not necessarily, it could mean that the people that need to get tested aren't all getting tested.
The reason is not that some people are not willing to get test. The reason is also capacity, aldo policies on who is allowed to get test etc. Your case is literally someone who should be tested and was not, hence "not enough testing".
Here, I can get comertial test if I am willing to pay. No one will send me home. And if I was in contact with covid infected person, I get test for free (it is mandatory). And if I live in household with sick person, I have mandatory quarantine.
Sounds like where you live is no contract tracing and thus not enough testing.
It can also be the case that insufficient testing is available in your area.
I know a group of people that were tested because of potential exposure (they were tested based on 1 person reporting symptoms; the additional tests were done prior to that result coming back).
If you're not sick enough to require hospitalization, and especially if you're un-insured and poor and don't want to pay a couple-hundred bucks out of pocket, then you'll probably just ride it out and never get tested. I'm sure this is the state of things for tens of millions of Americans.
That's because the test won't change anything. If it's positive, they'll tell you to isolate your kid. If it's negative, there's a high enough false negative rate that you'll still need to basically treat them like they have COVID (stay home and isolate).
>And isolation of sick patient from viral reservoir (such as fomites and other asymptomatic sick) is known to be important too, as it changes the viral inoculum dose.
This isn't known to be important. If a person has been infected long enough that they are already symptomatic then "viral inoculum dose" is irrelevant.