• Joseph’s Blog
  • Respect
  • The Lords of Greenwich
  • The Neglected and Abused
  • Contact
  • Crossword Puzzles
  • Archives
  • All Posts
  • Home

Joseph Bentivegna, M.D.April 9, 2020

More Coronavirus Testing – Helpful but not a Panacea

 

      Testing, testing and more testing. That is the mantra health experts are telling the American people is the best way to contain the coronavirus pandemic. And they are right, up to a point. But these tests have limitations and those who expect clear-cut advice or a risk-free future are going to be disappointed.

      Before understanding coronavirus testing, let’s take a simplified look at how the immune system works. When our bodies are invaded by a virus, the affected cells secrete messenger proteins that signal our white blood cells to attack the virus to prevent further spread. Often this is enough. But then our body comes up with a secondary response. It manufactures specific proteins called antibodies and killer white blood cells that can recognize the invading virus and destroy it if it reinvades. This is called immunity.

      Thus, there are two types of tests to check for coronavirus – one identifies the actual virus in a patient; the other identifies the antibodies.

      The first type requires a swab of the affected tissue and in the case of coronavirus, it is the back of the throat. This tissue is then processed with enzymes that can identify the unique RNA sequence associated with the coronavirus. But this test has been created quickly and generates according to some estimates a 30% rate of “false negatives,” meaning that the test is negative even though the patient has coronavirus. The opposite can also occur, where the test is positive even though the patient does not have coronavirus. Naturally, this is called a false positive. This is further complicated by the fact many carriers of the disease have minimal or no symptoms but can spread it to others. Thus, even if we were able to test every American, isolating those positive for the test would not insure the containment of this pandemic.

      The second type tests for the antibodies and identifies those who are immune from the disease and may be able to return to the workplace. This test requires a blood sample but can be processed quickly after a simple finger prick. But it has limitations too. Some patients have stronger immune systems than others. Thus, an individual with a weak immune system with a positive test could still become reinfected. Also, an individual may make antibodies quickly while still being a carrier of the disease. Obviously, this person should not be exposed to the general public.

      Thus, the best way to prevent spread of this disease is the same as what the Venetians came up with in 1347 to decrease the spread of the Bubonic Plague – a killer of one-third of Europe’s population. It is called quarantine, which comes from the Italian word “quaranta” meaning forty. The leaders of the day empirically determined that this was the optimal time period to sequester a population to diminish the spread of a disease. What is fascinating is that these leaders had no concept of the germ theory but came up with about the same number our leaders are using today. Forty days is about the time an epidemic will peak, or about the time a population will endure being isolated and unable to make a living before they rebel. Take your pick.

Filed Under: All Articles, Blog, Health Care Reform, Medicine

Joseph Bentivegna, M.D.March 2, 2020

The Coronavirus Epidemic Explained

         The world is in a panic over a coronavirus, specifically COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease 2019). The stock market has dropped precipitously, airport travel has plummeted, vacations are being cancelled and students are returning early from foreign countries. There is a lot of misinformation about COVID-19, and perhaps reviewing some basic concepts will allay readers’ […]

Filed Under: All Articles, Blog, Health Care Reform

Joseph Bentivegna, M.D.February 17, 2020

The Insurance Companies Don’t Care if my Patients Go Blind

         One of the proudest accomplishments of my profession, ophthalmology, is the reduction in blindness from glaucoma. Decades ago, it was common to hear “Uncle John went blind from glaucoma.” Now such tragedies are rare. But now the insurance companies are refusing to pay for the most effective glaucoma medicines while increasing the patients’ […]

Filed Under: All Articles, Blog, Health Care Reform, Medicine

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Next Page »
Doctor Bentivegna is an ophthalmologist living in Connecticut. He has written numerous op-ed pieces for The Hartford Courant and The New York Times regarding health care, tort reform, and the political situation in Haiti.

Respect

An edgy and often hilarious exploration of barely concealed racism told as a taut page-turner that ranges through a kaleidoscope of ethnic experiences and economic classes. This novel, Respect, is sure to have people talking.

$17.95Add to cart


The Neglected and Abused: A Physician's Year in Haiti

haiti

The most moving account of the situation in Haiti ever written by a non-Haitian. Haiti-Observateur

$19.95Add to cart


When to Refuse Treatment

Described by Aging Magazine as "frank, sensitive and specific."

$17.95Add to cart


The Lords of Greenwich

The Lords of Greenwich

Compelling from start to finish...a must read novel. Gerry Demeusy, Crime Reporter, The Hartford Courant.

$19.95Add to cart


Recent Posts

  • President Biden May Have Parkinson’s Disease
  • The Real Winner in the 2022 Midterms is the White Upper Middle Class
  • Bear Attack Highlights the Need for Controlling this Population
  • A Major Reason for Political Polarization is Medical Advances
  • Parents Should Have Input in Their Children’s Education
  • Joseph’s Blog
  • Respect
  • The Lords of Greenwich
  • The Neglected and Abused
  • Contact
  • Crossword Puzzles
  • Archives
  • All Posts
  • Home

Copyright Joseph Bentivegna © 2023 · Log in