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 AustinChief:
A far simpler and more reliable solution would be to get serology testing out to the public and then if someone has antibodies and is fever and symptom free for X number of days, they are cleared to do whatever they want.
You can debate almost every aspect of our response to this but I find it hard to justify how little emphasis was placed on getting serology testing rolled out as soon as possible.
This is one of the best solutions. We need to ramp up the antibody test ASAP for the economy and critical infrastructure's sake. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I have no idea who wrote the app or programmed the grading system but one must assume you know what a "C" grade implies.
So, you know nothing about it, but you believe the grade. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Explain this - the idea of social distancing is to flatten the curve, yes? And in flattening the curve, you lower the peak. Agreed?
Yet universally, in EVERY one of those models, the consensus was that by flattening the curve and lowering the peak, you push said peak out. Because of course you do, that's how mitigation operates.
And yet the peaks are moving in. MASSIVELY. By over a month in Missouri. Nothing about higher rates of social distancing would've caused that. Sure, it might yield lower overall figures but it wouldn't simply rush the peak forward by several weeks.
.
If you practice enough distancing to lower the effective R0 of the virus to less than one, you will reach a peak sooner with fewer cases because the virus is being transmitted to less than one additional person for every infection, and thus, cannot sustain itself past the incubation and convalescent period. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I'm not nor have I ever implied it was anything nefarious.
What's interesting is that the info on the virus we have been given from the start has been false, inaccurate, inconsistent, and or flat out wrong it seems like we have all stated at some time it's hard to know what to actually believe.
But if someone has a difference in opinion then obviously they must be wrong.
I don't think the info we have in regards to the actual virus has been totally wrong. It is a new virus that we are still learning about but we do know a couple of things such as it is highly communicable and deadly. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
This because Florida has handled it very poorly..
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
Ok. So I’ve been rolling wheels pretty hard and haven’t paid any attention to, well, much of anything.
These numbers.... goddamn.
It's not only the governor handled it sooo bad, he was a total **** up with his response, its that he stopped local counties and cities from taking steps to protect their community. He went to court and sued counties and cities that they didn't have the authority to close a beach or order a stay at home order for their local city or county. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
You should have just type the math doesn't add up in all caps, much shorter and concise. :-)
I absolutely believe they underestimated the impact of social distancing. I just don't for one second believe it was due to some whimsical notion that people simply did what they said to do better than they said to do it. Especially when the first model that the rest of these modeling efforts seemed to spring from was assuming complete social isolation (as stated by its creator) and it's best case scenarios were still orders of magnitude worse than we've seen.
Nor do I think that's the only problem with them. I don't think we can even assume it's the MAIN problem with them.
I just think its laughable that they happened to put forward the one possible explanation that allows them to duck responsibility and pat people on the back (thus giving them pride in the outcomes and turning off their bullshit detectors) as the reason their models were completely worthless. Even after they refused to 'fix' whatever their claimed driver was after a week or more of clear information to the contrary.
Give the public a pat on the head and I guess they'll just lap up whatever you feed them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Explain this - the idea of social distancing is to flatten the curve, yes? And in flattening the curve, you lower the peak. Agreed?
Yet universally, in EVERY one of those models, the consensus was that by flattening the curve and lowering the peak, you push said peak out. Because of course you do, that's how mitigation operates.
And yet the peaks are moving in. MASSIVELY. By over a month in Missouri. Nothing about higher rates of social distancing would've caused that. Sure, it might yield lower overall figures but it wouldn't simply rush the peak forward by several weeks.
You fellas are so eager to take these guys at face value that it just blows my mind. Yeah, I'm sure the explanation they give, which just so happens to reinforce the thing they said to do anyway, was the right one. Nevermind the fact that there's an internal logical failure to it. Even when they showed 'social distancing vs. no social distancing' in their own models, the lowered peak was always further out. There was never an argument that any amount of social distancing, 20%, 50% or 100% would move the peak in.
This is the "I care too much" of interview answers. "We were just TOO right, guys. We knew how important social distancing was and look, the fact that we were off by enormous numbers even at the BOTTOM of our uncertainty curves just proves how right we were!!!" Oh, and the fact that we saw in real time that social distancing was going along at rates far higher than 50% for over a week, 'updated' our model twice in that period of time and STILL couldn't get within 1/4 of our claimed figures....nah, don't worry about that little guy.
FFS. Y'all shit on any study that uses SARS or MERS as a baseline yet the Imperial College model was nothing BUT an recycled SARS model. And it assumed total social distancing in its best case scenario (Ferguson swore by that when he was preaching his gloom and doom) - shockingly, the IMHE model tracked right along with it.
And now you're just taking their justifications, ones that just happen to make them look good despite being catastrophically wrong, at face value and assuming these kindly scientists and mathematicians who will absolutely be using their 'performance' as a basis for grants, etc... had clearly pure motives as they were rushing models to the front with literally no reliable real-world data.
Sure guys - you were just too damn right. Thank you, oh noble 'experts'. You've proven your worth in spades throughout this thing.
Could you make your posts a little shorter? Not trying to be a dick in just saying. If I wanted to read a long article on the subject I would go to a different website. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
If you practice enough distancing to lower the effective R0 of the virus to less than one, you will reach a peak sooner with fewer cases because the virus is being transmitted to less than one additional person for every infection, and thus, cannot sustain itself past the incubation and convalescent period.
You believe the R0 is presently anywhere near 1? And that it happened in, what, a week?
C'mon. You continue to overstate the ease in which you can drive a virus's R0 down to 1.
And again, how do you explain the fact that those models, even the best case scenarios with complete social isolation, DIDN'T do what you're saying would happen. They didn't bring the peak in sooner - they simply reduced it even flatter and for even longer.
The models that you're trying desperately to defend didn't even do what you claim is so facially obvious as to be beyond reproach. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
If you practice enough distancing to lower the effective R0 of the virus to less than one, you will reach a peak sooner with fewer cases because the virus is being transmitted to less than one additional person for every infection, and thus, cannot sustain itself past the incubation and convalescent period.
You can also fit the data by increasing the assumed R0 and assuming a much higher infected rate and a much lower severity for the virus, that is what one of the UK models did. I have no clue which is correct but let's be honest and recognize that there are VASTLY disparate models that can fit the data we currently have. As we get more data that will obviously change. Serology tests would be a HUGE benefit right now in regards to having much more accurate data. (Yes, I'm going to keep beating that dead horse) [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Could your posts a little shorter? Not trying to be a dick in just saying. If I wanted to read a thesis paper I would.
You don't read it anyway so no, I'm not typing for the "hey, could you dumb that down so the 'arrest anyone that leaves their home' crowd can understand?".
Short enough for you sweetheart?
Don't wanna read it, don't read it. You won't offer anything useful in response anyway. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
You don't read it anyway so no, I'm not typing for the "hey, could you dumb that down so the 'arrest anyone that leaves their home' crowd can understand?".
Short enough for you sweetheart?
Don't wanna read it, don't read it. You won't offer anything useful in response anyway.
Im just saying you can be a little wordy in your responses something you admitted yourself. Do you really think anyone is going to read that longass post? Just some friendly advice [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Could you make your posts a little shorter? Not trying to be a dick in just saying. If I wanted to read a long article on the subject I would go to a different website.
The post contains information not consistent with your desire to live in a continued state of hysteria so you should probably save your time/energy and continue hoarding toilet paper instead. [Reply]
