Doctor criticises MOH for discharging an infectious COVID-19 CECA patient prematurely from hospital, causing new cluster

o blong

Supremacy Member
Joined
Dec 2, 2012
Messages
8,195
Reaction score
194
Ok la.. Ppl come here contribute yr biz park

Show some love can?
 

Bardiel

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2006
Messages
23,060
Reaction score
450
CECA is protected race. nth we all can do. even MIW lick their balls
 

guile

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Jan 1, 2000
Messages
18,958
Reaction score
617
Everything is an honest mistake ok. People should just move on otherwise some will brand you as snowflakes.
 

Acetone

High Supremacy Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
45,216
Reaction score
1,841

Medical doctor Lim Boon Hee wrote in Straits Times Forum today criticising the Ministry of Health (MOH) for making mistakes in relying only on viral load and serology test to allow an infected COVID-19 patient be discharged from hospital prematurely (‘Forum: Don’t rely on viral load and serology test alone‘, 23 Apr).

“It takes only one positive Covid-19 case to start another wave of community infections if we let our guard down,” Dr Lim cautioned.

“I am referring to the imported case who was probably reinfected in India, infectious on return to Singapore and released into the community as he was deemed to be no longer infectious. Unfortunately he was, and thus infected two others, starting a new cluster.”

“Any person with a positive PCR, or polymerase chain reaction, swab must be assumed to be infectious and immediately isolated”, Dr Lim added.

Dr Lim was referring to a 43 year-old Indian expat on Work Pass who arrived in Singapore from India on 2 Apr and was tested positive for COVID-19 on arrival. His serology test result also came back positive suggesting that it was an old infection (‘Expat from India discharged from hospital as recovered COVID case, who later goes on to infect 2 others‘).

The authorities then deemed that the Indian expat was a recovered case based on his high Ct value indicating a low viral load. They discharged him from the hospital on 6 Apr, as he was deemed to have been shedding only minute fragments of the virus RNA, which were no longer transmissible to others.

But 10 and 12 days later, his sister-in-law and her husband who are staying together with him, were infected. In fact, just yesterday (22 Apr), it was reported that his nephew, an 11 year-old Indian national on Student’s Pass also staying with them, is the latest victim. He is a student at Dimensions International College.

After his sister-in-law was tested positive, the Indian expat was re-tested which showed that his COVID-19 viral load has increased and that his Ct value was lower than that of his earlier test. This suggests that he was exposed to a new infection which boosted his antibody levels.

Later, MOH said that the Indian expat was “probably re-infected when he was in India, and had been infectious when he returned to Singapore”.

Dr Lim commented, “The doctors who deemed him as non-infectious were probably misled by two red herrings – the low viral load, and the positive serology test, which tests for antibodies to the virus. They probably concluded the very low viral load meant he was recovering from infection.”

“But a low viral load can equally mean an early acute infection before the virus replicates,” Dr Lim explained.

“In the current situation of multiple variants of the virus, positive serology, or having antibodies to the virus, just means the patient was infected before and does not rule out a new acute infection. It could very well still be a sub-acute case and the patient could still be infectious, as this case has shown.”

Dr Lim added that relying on the viral load and positive serology test to release imported Covid-19 patients is unwise. He advised that all tested positive for Covid-19 upon entering Singapore be treated as people with acute infection, and be quarantined appropriately until proven otherwise.

“We cannot afford to have another reinfected case starting a new wave of Covid-19 in our community,” he said.
In before CECA says: "I got infected in SG"

hzwadde0528.jpg



 

coern

Supremacy Member
Joined
Nov 12, 2000
Messages
8,756
Reaction score
440
This is April letter about the early April case - after this, MOH called back all the domestic workers for additional SHN - everyone forgot liao?


'People who have recovered from COVID-19 can continue to shed non-infectious viral fragments for several months after the initial infection.

Their polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests may give a positive result, but they are not infectious.

Hence, inbound travellers found to have COVID-19 antibodies after recovering from a past infection, based on tests performed after arrival in Singapore, were previously exempted from serving Stay-Home Notice (SHN).

However, given the emergence of variants globally and the risks of reinfection, we have since ceased such exemptions.

In addition, as a precautionary move, between April 29 and May 7, we called back 700 migrant domestic workers (MDWs) who had recently entered Singapore for retesting, in order to rule out the possibility of reinfection.

None was found to have been reinfected or infectious.
'



Medical doctor Lim Boon Hee wrote in Straits Times Forum today criticising the Ministry of Health (MOH) for making mistakes in relying only on viral load and serology test to allow an infected COVID-19 patient be discharged from hospital prematurely (‘Forum: Don’t rely on viral load and serology test alone‘, 23 Apr).

“It takes only one positive Covid-19 case to start another wave of community infections if we let our guard down,” Dr Lim cautioned.

“I am referring to the imported case who was probably reinfected in India, infectious on return to Singapore and released into the community as he was deemed to be no longer infectious. Unfortunately he was, and thus infected two others, starting a new cluster.”

“Any person with a positive PCR, or polymerase chain reaction, swab must be assumed to be infectious and immediately isolated”, Dr Lim added.

Dr Lim was referring to a 43 year-old Indian expat on Work Pass who arrived in Singapore from India on 2 Apr and was tested positive for COVID-19 on arrival. His serology test result also came back positive suggesting that it was an old infection (‘Expat from India discharged from hospital as recovered COVID case, who later goes on to infect 2 others‘).

The authorities then deemed that the Indian expat was a recovered case based on his high Ct value indicating a low viral load. They discharged him from the hospital on 6 Apr, as he was deemed to have been shedding only minute fragments of the virus RNA, which were no longer transmissible to others.

But 10 and 12 days later, his sister-in-law and her husband who are staying together with him, were infected. In fact, just yesterday (22 Apr), it was reported that his nephew, an 11 year-old Indian national on Student’s Pass also staying with them, is the latest victim. He is a student at Dimensions International College.

After his sister-in-law was tested positive, the Indian expat was re-tested which showed that his COVID-19 viral load has increased and that his Ct value was lower than that of his earlier test. This suggests that he was exposed to a new infection which boosted his antibody levels.

Later, MOH said that the Indian expat was “probably re-infected when he was in India, and had been infectious when he returned to Singapore”.

Dr Lim commented, “The doctors who deemed him as non-infectious were probably misled by two red herrings – the low viral load, and the positive serology test, which tests for antibodies to the virus. They probably concluded the very low viral load meant he was recovering from infection.”

“But a low viral load can equally mean an early acute infection before the virus replicates,” Dr Lim explained.

“In the current situation of multiple variants of the virus, positive serology, or having antibodies to the virus, just means the patient was infected before and does not rule out a new acute infection. It could very well still be a sub-acute case and the patient could still be infectious, as this case has shown.”

Dr Lim added that relying on the viral load and positive serology test to release imported Covid-19 patients is unwise. He advised that all tested positive for Covid-19 upon entering Singapore be treated as people with acute infection, and be quarantined appropriately until proven otherwise.

“We cannot afford to have another reinfected case starting a new wave of Covid-19 in our community,” he said.
 

Newtype_com

Arch-Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2006
Messages
10,318
Reaction score
811
Why can suka suka fly to Yeendia and come back here???

Tot borders already closed???
 

Phoooey

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2015
Messages
518
Reaction score
40

Medical doctor Lim Boon Hee wrote in Straits Times Forum today criticising the Ministry of Health (MOH) for making mistakes in relying only on viral load and serology test to allow an infected COVID-19 patient be discharged from hospital prematurely (‘Forum: Don’t rely on viral load and serology test alone‘, 23 Apr).

“It takes only one positive Covid-19 case to start another wave of community infections if we let our guard down,” Dr Lim cautioned.

“I am referring to the imported case who was probably reinfected in India, infectious on return to Singapore and released into the community as he was deemed to be no longer infectious. Unfortunately he was, and thus infected two others, starting a new cluster.”

“Any person with a positive PCR, or polymerase chain reaction, swab must be assumed to be infectious and immediately isolated”, Dr Lim added.

Dr Lim was referring to a 43 year-old Indian expat on Work Pass who arrived in Singapore from India on 2 Apr and was tested positive for COVID-19 on arrival. His serology test result also came back positive suggesting that it was an old infection (‘Expat from India discharged from hospital as recovered COVID case, who later goes on to infect 2 others‘).

The authorities then deemed that the Indian expat was a recovered case based on his high Ct value indicating a low viral load. They discharged him from the hospital on 6 Apr, as he was deemed to have been shedding only minute fragments of the virus RNA, which were no longer transmissible to others.

But 10 and 12 days later, his sister-in-law and her husband who are staying together with him, were infected. In fact, just yesterday (22 Apr), it was reported that his nephew, an 11 year-old Indian national on Student’s Pass also staying with them, is the latest victim. He is a student at Dimensions International College.

After his sister-in-law was tested positive, the Indian expat was re-tested which showed that his COVID-19 viral load has increased and that his Ct value was lower than that of his earlier test. This suggests that he was exposed to a new infection which boosted his antibody levels.

Later, MOH said that the Indian expat was “probably re-infected when he was in India, and had been infectious when he returned to Singapore”.

Dr Lim commented, “The doctors who deemed him as non-infectious were probably misled by two red herrings – the low viral load, and the positive serology test, which tests for antibodies to the virus. They probably concluded the very low viral load meant he was recovering from infection.”

“But a low viral load can equally mean an early acute infection before the virus replicates,” Dr Lim explained.

“In the current situation of multiple variants of the virus, positive serology, or having antibodies to the virus, just means the patient was infected before and does not rule out a new acute infection. It could very well still be a sub-acute case and the patient could still be infectious, as this case has shown.”

Dr Lim added that relying on the viral load and positive serology test to release imported Covid-19 patients is unwise. He advised that all tested positive for Covid-19 upon entering Singapore be treated as people with acute infection, and be quarantined appropriately until proven otherwise.

“We cannot afford to have another reinfected case starting a new wave of Covid-19 in our community,” he said.
Seemed like quite a number of doctors are recently very critical of the government and MOH’s handling of the COVID situation.

That’s the worse fears of laymen who are not experts. When medical professionals from both sides provides a medical advice and second opinions that are totally different.

Which side is more professional and stick to their oath of first do no harm?

Which side is trying to win a high stake gamble and perhaps please their political masters for brighter career prospects?
 

Acetone

High Supremacy Member
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
45,216
Reaction score
1,841
Commit This kind of critical error won’t tio sack ah?
 

gerrychua

Master Member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
2,514
Reaction score
374
Seems this GP has more common sense than the many prof on the expert panel. We need more of this type instead of those who rely on research papers and cannot relate to the ground.
 

Philipkee

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2013
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
618
Seemed like quite a number of doctors are recently very critical of the government and MOH’s handling of the COVID situation.

That’s the worse fears of laymen who are not experts. When medical professionals from both sides provides a medical advice and second opinions that are totally different.

Which side is more professional and stick to their oath of first do no harm?

Which side is trying to win a high stake gamble and perhaps please their political masters for brighter career prospects?
I think all are trying their best. It's the decision maker that should be answerable.

An example.
A child has slight fever. Doctor A says take medications and rest one day. Dr B says just rest and drink water and rest three days. Both have their points.

Kiasu parents will tell the child to take medications and rest three days.

Some (ahem) will tell the child to rest, drink water and rest one day.

In both scenarios, parents followed the doctor's advice but both might have very different outcomes.
 

Ironside

Supremacy Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2005
Messages
6,375
Reaction score
822
Seems this GP has more common sense than the many prof on the expert panel. We need more of this type instead of those who rely on research papers and cannot relate to the ground.

This is just top of an iceberg in our civil service. For quite long they have been using experts said....
 
Important Forum Advisory Note
This forum is moderated by volunteer moderators who will react only to members' feedback on posts. Moderators are not employees or representatives of HWZ. Forum members and moderators are responsible for their own posts.

Please refer to our Terms of Service for more information.
Top