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 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Given that we are unsure of the asymptomatic number and absolute infectiousness of the virus, the better indicators are hospitalizations and death rates. We obviously *want* the new cases to go down, but new case discovery is also a function of testing capacity, where as hospitalization is a function of the breadth of illness and death rates are a function of strain on the hospital system.
If you test 2,000 people and 1800 of them are positive that's lower new case growth than testing 25,000 people with 3,000 positive, but one is a much worse indicator than another.
I don't disagree with the hospitalization numbers and that there are clearly more cases out there we aren't aware of because they haven't been tested and/or are asymptomatic. And who has the hospitalization numbers?
Meh, maybe it's just me on the confirmed new case numbers. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SAUTO:
And there’s a ton of people not getting tested...
Originally Posted by Donger:
Because it's a confirmed number. Any decline trend of that number is a good thing.
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Why not new cases?
Hamas answered it better than I could. Plus there is probably a high false negative rate with the test and we are so behind we are probably looking at numbers from a week to 10 days ago. So I guess that could be a little positive news. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
I don't disagree with the hospitalization numbers and that there are clearly more cases out there we aren't aware of because they haven't been tested and/or are asymptomatic. And who has the hospitalization numbers?
Meh, maybe it's just me on the confirmed new case numbers.
I imagine only the states and local health departments actually have those numbers. I haven't seen them anywhere. Deaths are a substitute, but they obviously lag more than hospitalizations. Deaths going down are a sign that hospitalizations will decrease, though, unless there is an effective treatment plan unveiled.
Of course, case reporting for this entire thing has been a fucking nightmare, and it has not been helped by the obvious bullshit spewed from totalitarian states about their case and death numbers. It makes solving the problem that much more difficult. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
Hamas answered it better than I could. Plus there is probably a high false negative rate with the test and we are so behind we are probably looking at numbers from a week to 10 days ago. So I guess that could be a little positive news.
See this is what you call paralysis by analysis. People are reluctant to accept any numbers for whatever reason. These numbers are probably that. Those numbers are probably this. That number is really the other thing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
Hamas answered it better than I could. Plus there is probably a high false negative rate with the test and we are so behind we are probably looking at numbers from a week to 10 days ago. So I guess that could be a little positive news.
Unless I mis-read Hamas, he's not saying a decline in new case growth isn't a positive. He's saying that a decline in new hospitalizations is a better positive. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I imagine only the states and local health departments actually have those numbers. I haven't seen them anywhere. Deaths are a substitute, but they obviously lag more than hospitalizations. Deaths going down are a sign that hospitalizations will decrease, though, unless there is an effective treatment plan unveiled.
Of course, case reporting for this entire thing has been a ****ing nightmare, and it has not been helped by the obvious bullshit spewed from totalitarian states about their case and death numbers. It makes solving the problem that much more difficult.
Originally Posted by Donger:
Unless I mis-read Hamas, he's not saying a decline in new case growth isn't a positive. He's saying that a decline in new hospitalizations is a better positive.
That's fair. You'd obviously want to always have lower numbers if they are coming from consistent testing. I'm not trying to be Debbie Downer, but I do want to stress that there can be multiple reasons for lower numbers--some of them good, some of them not.
Russia can say they have no problem by classifying all of their COVID deaths as pneumonia (they did similar bullshit during the early years of HIV, too), but it doesn't mean the virus isn't there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
See this is what you call paralysis by analysis. People are reluctant to accept any numbers for whatever reason. These numbers are probably that. Those numbers are probably this. That number is really the other thing.
meh..I only think the death numbers are important until we get testing squared away. [Reply]
If we assume deaths associated to it are occurring in people who tested positive for it then new cases is the first predictor of potential upcoming deaths which is why new cases are still very important. [Reply]
IHME updated their model again and pushed MO peak date to April 28th.
Also for us losers living in MO they do have a pretty good pdf they update daily that shows cases\deaths\hospitalizations etc and looks like they added where they are at with supplies.
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
IHME updated their model again and pushed MO peak date to April 28th.
Also for us losers living in MO they do have a pretty good pdf they update daily that shows cases\deaths\hospitalizations etc and looks like they added where they are at with supplies.
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
IHME updated their model again and pushed MO peak date to April 28th.
Also for us losers living in MO they do have a pretty good pdf they update daily that shows cases\deaths\hospitalizations etc and looks like they added where they are at with supplies.
IMHE model update looks bad all around. They updated their uncertainty level for the country way up - and it went way up in Missouri too. Projected death toll for Missouri is also much higher this time around. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
IMHE model update looks bad all around. They updated their uncertainty level for the country way up - and it went way up in Missouri too. Projected death toll for Missouri is also much higher this time around.