Originally Posted by Bwana:
Once again, don't come in this thread with some kind of political agenda, or you will be shown the door. If you want to go that route, there is a thread about this in DC.
Originally Posted by Dartgod:
People, there is a lot of good information in this thread, let's try to keep the petty bickering to a minimum.
We all have varying opinions about the impact of this, the numbers, etc. We will all never agree with each other. But we can all keep it civil.
Thanks!
Click here for the original OP:
Spoiler!
Apparently the CoronaVirus can survive on a inanimate objects, such as door knobs, for 9 days.
California coronavirus case could be first spread within U.S. community, CDC says
By SOUMYA KARLAMANGLA, JACLYN COSGROVE
FEB. 26, 2020 8:04 PM
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is investigating what could be the first case of novel coronavirus in the United States involving a patient in California who neither recently traveled out of the country nor was in contact with someone who did.
“At this time, the patient’s exposure is unknown. It’s possible this could be an instance of community spread of COVID-19, which would be the first time this has happened in the United States,” the CDC said in a statement. “Community spread means spread of an illness for which the source of infection is unknown. It’s also possible, however, that the patient may have been exposed to a returned traveler who was infected.”
The individual is a resident of Solano County and is receiving medical care in Sacramento County, according to the state Department of Public Health.
The CDC said the “case was detected through the U.S. public health system — picked up by astute clinicians.”
Officials at UC Davis Medical Center expanded on what the federal agency might have meant by that in an email sent Wednesday, as reported by the Davis Enterprise newspaper.
The patient arrived at UC Davis Medical Center from another hospital Feb. 19 and “had already been intubated, was on a ventilator, and given droplet protection orders because of an undiagnosed and suspected viral condition,” according to an email sent by UC Davis officials that was obtained by the Davis Enterprise.
The staff at UC Davis requested COVID-19 testing by the CDC, but because the patient didn’t fit the CDC’s existing criteria for the virus, a test wasn’t immediately administered, according to the email. The CDC then ordered the test Sunday, and results were announced Wednesday. Hospital administrators reportedly said in the email that despite these issues, there has been minimal exposure at the hospital because of safety protocols they have in place.
A UC Davis Health spokesperson declined Wednesday evening to share the email with The Times.
Since Feb. 2, more than 8,400 returning travelers from China have entered California, according to the state health department. They have been advised to self-quarantine for 14 days and limit interactions with others as much as possible, officials said.
“This is a new virus, and while we are still learning about it, there is a lot we already know,” Dr. Sonia Angell, director of the California Department of Public Health, said in a statement. “We have been anticipating the potential for such a case in the U.S., and given our close familial, social and business relationships with China, it is not unexpected that the first case in the U.S. would be in California.”
It is not clear how the person became infected, but public health workers could not identify any contacts with people who had traveled to China or other areas where the virus is widespread. That raises concern that the virus is spreading in the United States, creating a challenge for public health officials, experts say.
“It’s the first signal that we could be having silent transmission in the community,” said Lawrence Gostin, director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law. “It probably means there are many more cases out there, and it probably means this individual has infected others, and now it’s a race to try to find out who that person has infected.”
On Tuesday, the CDC offered its most serious warning to date that the United States should expect and prepare for the coronavirus to become a more widespread health issue.
“Ultimately, we expect we will see coronavirus spread in this country,” said Nancy Messonnier, director of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases. “It’s not so much a question of if, but a question of when.”
According to the CDC’s latest count Wednesday morning, 59 U.S. residents have tested positive for the new strain of coronavirus — 42 of whom are repatriated citizens from a Diamond Princess cruise. That number has grown by two since Messonnier’s last count Tuesday, although the CDC was not immediately available to offer details on the additional cases.
More than 82,000 cases of coronavirus have been reported globally, and more than 2,700 people have died, with the majority in mainland China, the epicenter of the outbreak.
But public health leaders have repeatedly reminded residents that the health risk from the novel coronavirus to the general public remains low.
“While COVID-19 has a high transmission rate, it has a low mortality rate,” the state Department of Public Health said in a statement Wednesday. “From the international data we have, of those who have tested positive for COVID-19, approximately 80% do not exhibit symptoms that would require hospitalization. There have been no confirmed deaths related to COVID-19 in the United States to date.”
CDC officials have also warned that although the virus is likely to spread in U.S. communities, the flu still poses a greater risk.
Gostin said the news of potential silent transmission does not eliminate the possibility of containing the virus in the U.S. and preventing an outbreak.
“There are few enough cases that we should at least try,” he said. “Most of us are not optimistic that that will be successful, but we’re still in the position to try.”
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Pretty comical, obviously I am wrong, not the models that have been way wrong the whole time. Makes sense.
I understand the math, I understand it's not linear, I also can tell when something is way ****ed up.
I am not saying we shouldn't be social distancing, I am not saying it doesn't work, I am not mad the numbers are better, I am simply pointing out how far off this stuff is and there is no real logic that explains it other than they were way wrong. Yea the social distancing compliance would explain some of it but come on man.
No idea why people are so obsessed with defending these models.
Perhaps you should just post that the math doesn't add up again. In CAPS. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
For today? Yes. If you throw in NJ then over 50% are from those two alone. While that's sad it's also good in some ways, I guess.
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Maybe you should eat a whole bag of dicks.
BTW if the math added up they wouldn't be revising the model by about 25% every 4 days.
Maybe he all ready has? It could explain why he is how he is [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Pretty comical, obviously I am wrong, not the models that have been way wrong the whole time. Makes sense.
I understand the math, I understand it's not linear, I also can tell when something is way fucked up.
I am not saying we shouldn't be social distancing, I am not saying it doesn't work, I am not mad the numbers are better, I am simply pointing out how far off this stuff is and there is no real logic that explains it other than they were way wrong. Yea the social distancing compliance would explain some of it but come on man.
No idea why people are so obsessed with defending these models.
I'm not defending the model. I'm just pushing back on the idea that it's appropriate to react with "OMG THE MODELS ARE ALL WRONG AND WE SHOULD NEVER HAVE DONE ANYTHING!!!!!111!!ONE!!!" when the numbers shift.
If a Category 5 hurricane is making a beeline for Miami, is it not appropriate for leaders to tell people to GTFO? That happens regularly (well, maybe not Cat 5 necessarily), and it's not at all uncommon for storms to shift and end up veering off into the ocean and not impacting people on land much, if at all. Does that mean that, in the future, leaders should just tell people to stay put even if all the models show a Cat 5 hurricane bearing down? Absolutely not. Ignoring the model entirely could result in a huge catastrophe and thousands of people dead.
This isn't any different. It appears that, through a combination of better understanding of the "storm" by watching its track and our own mitigation efforts, the models are now suggesting that the damage won't be as severe. That doesn't mean that the model was "wrong" in the first place - it just means that better information has resulted in a different understanding.
Again, models should be taken with a grain of salt. But you seem to keep implying that they're completely useless and should be ignored. Doing that would certainly have resulted in far more deaths than we're seeing right now, and that's not really debatable.
I just don't understand what point you're trying to make other than...
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Pretty comical, obviously I am wrong, not the models that have been way wrong the whole time. Makes sense.
I understand the math, I understand it's not linear, I also can tell when something is way ****ed up.
I am not saying we shouldn't be social distancing, I am not saying it doesn't work, I am not mad the numbers are better, I am simply pointing out how far off this stuff is and there is no real logic that explains it other than they were way wrong. Yea the social distancing compliance would explain some of it but come on man.
No idea why people are so obsessed with defending these models.
You very clearly do not know the math if you dont understand how having 90% following the SIP orders instead of 50% would screw up estimates so much. You don't see how having 165 mil people out spreading this instead of 33 mil people would have a huge impact on the total # of deaths and infected?
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
You very clearly do not know the math if you dont understand how having 90% following the SIP orders instead of 50% would screw up estimates so much. You don't see how having 165 mil people out spreading this instead of 33 mil people would have a huge impact on the total # of deaths and infected?
Really?
On top of that, if the R0 of this bug is really in the 3 to 5 range, the numbers get very large very quickly.
Thank God we did what we did when we did it, and that people are taking it seriously. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Pretty comical, obviously I am wrong, not the models that have been way wrong the whole time. Makes sense.
I understand the math, I understand it's not linear, I also can tell when something is way fucked up.
I am not saying we shouldn't be social distancing, I am not saying it doesn't work, I am not mad the numbers are better, I am simply pointing out how far off this stuff is and there is no real logic that explains it other than they were way wrong. Yea the social distancing compliance would explain some of it but come on man.
No idea why people are so obsessed with defending these models.
Apparently no one wants to actually answer your question but would rather suck Hamas off.
The reason the models have been so far off is because they are based on data that we simply don't have so we are forced to make assumptions. In theory, as time goes on we accumulate more data and can make fewer guesses and the models become more accurate.
So, yes, the answer is that they were "way wrong" but that's to be expected. With so many unknowns, if a model had been even somewhat accurate it would have been a minor miracle. [Reply]
Originally Posted by AustinChief:
Apparently no one wants to actually answer your question but would rather suck Hamas off.
The reason the models have been so far off is because they are based on data that we simply don't have so we are forced to make assumptions. In theory, as time goes on we accumulate more data and can make fewer guesses and the models become more accurate.
So, yes, the answer is that they were "way wrong" but that's to be expected. With so many unknowns, if a model had been even somewhat accurate it would have been a minor miracle.
Well, the 50% compliance was clearly a guess, as it had to be, but apparently the 90% is known with much higher certainty, no? I'd like to find out how they got that figure, though. I thought I read something about mobile phone tracking, but that's a can of worms that I'd rather not open at this stage. [Reply]
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is considering changing its guidelines for self-isolation to make it easier for those who have been exposed to someone with the coronavirus to return to work if they are without symptoms.
The public health agency, in conjunction with the White House coronavirus task force, is considering an announcement as soon as Wednesday, Vice President Mike Pence said.
Under the proposed guidance, people who are exposed to someone infected would be allowed back on the job if they have no symptoms, test their temperature twice a day and wear a face mask, said a person familiar with the proposal under consideration. The person was not authorized to publicly discuss the draft because it had not been finalized and described the proposal on the condition of anonymity.
Originally Posted by Donger:
Well, the 50% compliance was clearly a guess, as it had to be, but apparently the 90% is known with much higher certainty, no? I'd like to find out how they got that figure, though. I thought I read something about mobile phone tracking, but that's a can of worms that I'd rather not open at this stage.
My understanding is that it is not based on any hard data at all. It is based on going back over the data and finding a figure that fits the reality. Actually it's a whole set of figures that are adjusted to make the models' algorithms fit the data.
You start with an educated guess and adjust as more hard data comes in. The problem is that (as shown by an alternate model in the UK) you can have vastly different models that fit with the limited data we have at this point. [Reply]
