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 petegz28:
Let me ask this though, how else do our bodies develop an immunity to things without coming in contact with them? I think what him and other doctors are saying is what we need to be concerned about. Yes, we have flattened the curve but if you don't start getting out and building immunity you are going to get a huge spike later down the road.
Not every ones immune systems works the same way , the immune system doesn't do very well vs bacteria, would you expose yourself to Ebola to boost your immune system?
Fighting a virus like COVID-19 puts you at risk to getting things like bacterial pneumonia or inflammatory changes that can causes long term damage to organs or damage your lungs some of those are not worth the risk of building up your immune system. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Let me ask this though, how else do our bodies develop an immunity to things without coming in contact with them? I think what him and other doctors are saying is what we need to be concerned about. Yes, we have flattened the curve but if you don't start getting out and building immunity you are going to get a huge spike later down the road.
Not saying that this is my preferred approach, but the answer to your question is that we hunker down and wait for a vaccine. If the goal is to save lives no matter the cost, that's the right decision. If your goal is to save the economy at some level but let people die, it's obviously more nuanced. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Let me ask this though, how else do our bodies develop an immunity to things without coming in contact with them? I think what him and other doctors are saying is what we need to be concerned about. Yes, we have flattened the curve but if you don't start getting out and building immunity you are going to get a huge spike later down the road.
You'll only get a huge spike if you completely open things up and disregard distancing and hygiene recommendations.
You don't need enough people to get it to develop herd immunity (which lasts 1-2 years with every other known coronavirus in humans), you need to establish practices that reduce the effective R to the point where the virus doesn't spread easily.
If the R0 is 3 without any measures in place, you'd need 2/3 of the population to get the virus. If you have a system in place of mask wearing and hand washing and you can reduce the R to less than one, the virus dies out. If you can only reduce it to 1.5, then you only need 1/3 of the population to get the virus. That's a difference of 110 million infections even with an Re of 1.5. With an IFR of only 0.2 (and it's likely higher than that by a fair number), that's 220,000 fewer deaths. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
We are getting tons of info and tons of different opinions from all over the place , a lot of medical experts might disagree on many forms of treatments and might all end up with the same results. It is hard in situations like these to know if what we did was the right strategy, his strategy might be better it might not, If only this was like Counterpart with an alternate world we could use as a placebo group but unfortunately it is not.
Experts will continue to disagree on this for many years but just because they match up with out own opinions doesn't mean it is the right answer.
I am mainly referring to his risk mitigation strategy which is something Ive been wanting for some time. Keep the high risk people protected the best we can and turn the others loose.
There needs to he a happy medium. I think most sensible people that see the big picture agree with that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
I am mainly referring to his risk mitigation strategy which is something Ive been wanting for some time. Keep the high risk people protected the best we can and turn the others loose.
That's not what he's saying, either. He was critical of Sweden's approach, which itself is still more limited than "turning the others loose." [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Not saying that this is my preferred approach, but the answer to your question is that we hunker down and wait for a vaccine. If the goal is to save lives no matter the cost, that's the right decision. If your goal is to save the economy at some level but let people die, it's obviously more nuanced.
What if we never get a vaccine? I mean I know you are just drawing a straw man for argument sake but also to be more accurate, it's not the goal to necessarily save the economy but to let nature do its thing as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
I am mainly referring to his risk mitigation strategy which is something Ive been wanting for some time. Keep the high risk people protected the best we can and turn the others loose.
I have no issues with that the problem is we need to lock up stupid people as well because if we have to rely on the average person to not put at risk people in jeopardy it usually doesn't end well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
That's not what he's saying, either. He was critical of Sweden's approach, which itself is still more limited than "turning the others loose."
He isnt saying shut it down either.
I like his quote about you arent stopping deaths just changing the dates. You can nitpick that a bit but in general he is correct given most places arent even close to over burdening the health care facilities. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
What if we never get a vaccine? I mean I know you are just drawing a straw man for argument sake but also to be more accurate, it's not the goal to necessarily save the economy but to let nature do its thing as well.
In the end we might not get an vaccine or herd immunity and dying from this will become part of life and we move on as normal but I don't think that should be Plan A. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Not saying that this is my preferred approach, but the answer to your question is that we hunker down and wait for a vaccine. If the goal is to save lives no matter the cost, that's the right decision. If your goal is to save the economy at some level but let people die, it's obviously more nuanced.
We don't just "let people die" under any circumstances. But if we're being reasonable, we have to understand we can't save everyone. That's not even happening with the lockdown. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Not saying that this is my preferred approach, but the answer to your question is that we hunker down and wait for a vaccine. If the goal is to save lives no matter the cost, that's the right decision. If your goal is to save the economy at some level but let people die, it's obviously more nuanced.
I just don't feel "hunkering down" is a viable long term option. There has to be a middle ground at some point, not just for the economy but for our psyches as well. I'm certainly not calling for everything to be wide open tomorrow, but what we're doing now can't go on like this for 18-24 months. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
In the end we might not get an vaccine or herd immunity and dying from this will become part of life and we move on as normal but I don't think that should be Plan A.
Man you are such a chicken shit!!!!
I keed, I keed
I am not saying go full boar on re-opening and I think most people are not. But we have to move forward. Life is still happening. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
He isnt saying shut it down either.
I like his quote about you arent stopping deaths just changing the dates. You can nitpick that a bit but in general he is correct given most places arent even close to over burdening the health care facilities.
We shut down our district before we had 1 cases within 100km from us or any community acquired cases. we have 16 total 14 recovered , no deaths and no new cases in over 5 days, was it luck? having measures in place before infestation? we are awesome and better than everybody else? the disease is not as bad as people expected?
My vote is having measures in place early but some might disagree. [Reply]
