Should Covid testing be used with all fatalities, or reserved exclusively for the living?

[Alex4Martinez]

Upon reading articles that suggest many potential Covid deaths are not being counted but that an increase in demand at funeral homes, etc., exceeds the reported numbers of Covid fatalities, I'm struck by the conundrum:

Unless the number of tests available is adequate to test both the living and the dead, should we focus these on the living and put questionable fatalities aside, or somehow split the number of test kits?



This dilemma is brought to you by Trump and the Republican Party.

NB: Inspired by this thread: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100213273046

And by this report: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/10/upshot/coronavirus-deaths-new-york-city.html

And by this video: https://vp.nyt.com/video/2020/04/10/85977_1_10vid-Hart-Island_wg_720p.mp4

[jmg257]

1. Counting deaths would be interesting, but not nearly as

Important as protecting the living.

[Historic NY]

2. In order to know accurately yes

I understand the ME's office by me is presuming its COVID for anyone over 50.

[Flaleftist]

3. How about listing presumed covid deaths as such and saving

a sample for testing later when more test kits are available?

[stopdiggin]

6. exactly. the immediate need is for

live (and contact) testing. Cause of death testing can be delayed to allow that current prioritization. The only judgement call or ethical dilemma here is whether unidentified deaths should be "assumed" Covid, for the purposes of contact tracing. But obtaining (and preserving) samples for later testing and morbidity studies .. is simply not a problem, and virtually a no brainer. If it isn't be done (universally) then someone in your health department needs to be kicked in the ass!

[customerserviceguy]

4. At this point

probably the best thing to do is to take a swab from a deceased person, and store it until testing kits are considered plentiful.

[qwlauren35]

5. The living.

There is nothing we can do for the dead, but testing the living can save lives.

[Alex4Martinez]

7. I agree, but we shouldn't have to make that decision. Trump is a failure.

For all his boviation, he's a failure, there aren't nearly enough tests and probably never will be in time to make the differences that would have saved thousands of lives.

We must never forget.

[Cattledog]

8. All!

[nilram]

9. The Covid death rate can probably be inferred

by the difference between the normal/average death rate and the rate in areas of infection. When someone publishes that, it’s going to be huge.

[Alex4Martinez]

10. I agree. There's a challenge in that there's valuable info to be gleaned from testing the dead.

For example, tracing vectors, etc.

I post the question because it's really a dilemma, created by Trump, that worsens the crisis.

We don't have enough to test the living, much less the living and the dead.

Trump, meanwhile, gets tested twice.

[Igel]

11. Probably.

But read them carefully. Some will try to use unweighted demographics and numbers unadjusted for location and season.

[Igel]

12. Neither.

For those that are plausibly COVID, yes. You drown or get hit by a car, no.

Heart attack ... Uh ... If you're already at death's door and under a doctor's care, no, unless you're symptomatic. (That's often the case. If you're asymptomatic, it's unlikely a heart attack is from COVID.)

Why test the dead? Because if somebody dies I'm sure those who were in close contact would like to know they're at risk. It's the *same* reason for testing the living, minus the psychological relief of knowing what it is you're actually suffering and might die from. And when (if?) we go to actual contact tracing in a serious way, we'll need to test the dead.

The number of people who want to be tested is too large the test kit quantity on any day to be adequate. For many there's no reason to test. Some just want to know if they're sick today ... How about now? ... And now? It doesn't affect treatment, we're essentially self-isolating anyway, and stressing out over "quarantining" somebody in the same house or apt. after being cooped up with them for 3 weeks and *then* finding they're sick ... Words fail.