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:
And that's going to happen regardless. There is no magic number or magic date where people will just pull a 180. So again, it's disingenuous to say had they waited longer they would have been been busier. They may be but there is no way of knowing that. But what we do know is regardless of when things open I think it is safe to assume you aren't going to see droves of people rushing back out.
His point he made to me about it was this....
If this is the norm most everyone will lose their job because they'll need like 2 employees. Which doesn't help the unemployment problem and secondly the people that returned to work before losing their job again will have been exposed more than they would have been before so to him it's a lose, lose situation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
In 2017-8, a bad year for the flu, 2/100,000 people aged 18-49 died of influenza.
In New York City, 16.53 people aged 18-44 per 100,000 have died of COVID-19 already.
You were wrong about this two months ago, you were wrong about this two weeks ago, you were wrong about this two hours ago, and you'll be wrong about it tomorrow.
NYC shows 3.5 per 100,000 not 16.5. There have been 309 deaths total under 50 with 244 of them having underlying conditions that include only -
Originally Posted by :
[1] Underlying illnesses include Diabetes, Lung Disease, Cancer, Immunodeficiency, Heart Disease, Hypertension, Asthma, Kidney Disease, and GI/Liver Disease.
Notice obesity is not listed as an underlying condition.
And hey lets use the one city that is an outlier and ignore the other 310MM people in the country that would drive the numbers down right?
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
Yay global depression were millions die of starvation, and because of malnutrition die of other shit! HOOZAH we beat COVID!
People die of starvation everyday, if we as a country really cared about that we'd have done something years and years ago. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
His point he made to me about it was this....
If this is the norm most everyone will lose their job because they'll need like 2 employees. Which doesn't help the unemployment problem and secondly the people that returned to work before losing their job again will have been exposed more than they would have been before so to him it's a lose, lose situation.
This isn't the norm though. Might be for the near term but 2 employees working is better than 0. You can speculate all the scenarios you want.
So it's like this:
Don't wanna open your business? Don't.
Don't wanna go back to work? Don't.
We have 33 mil unemployed right now so the argument of people losing their job has come and gone. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mecca:
I'm not saying everyone feels that way but I'm hearing survival of the fittest arguments these days, we aren't exactly a nation of compassion that's for sure.
Freedom has a cost. It always has and always will. We live in a country who values it, even if it's been eroded recently.
It's why so many people laughed at the plans many of the medical community kept spouting. It simply wasn't/isn't possible to implement them here. You had to be detached from reality or flawed by emotion to even accept their possibility at the scale required.
The revolution meme where one side spouts "where your masks" and the other side replies with "Fuck you" is more real that many accept. This is the United States of America. We play by our own rules, even if it is our downfall at times.
If the people could physically see the enemy, you might have been able to rally a few more troops to turn the tide for a few more weeks. Months?? ...no way in hell. [Reply]
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Please expand on your word salad... Are you talking about S. Korea... China?
Why do you just ignore 33 million unemployed and growing and the human costs in health and death that this will cost if it isn't rectified?
Oh, wait, are you talking about NY and sending Covid-19 patients back to Nursing homes? If so, my bad, that shouldn't have happened.
Predicting the future of the unemployed is harder than predicting the future of the dead, which also contributes to the economy, it needs to be a balance and the plan they put in places takes every thing into account t with the information we have at this juncture. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
Predicting the future of the unemployed is harder than predicting the future of the dead, which also contributes to the economy, it needs to be a balance and the plan they put in places takes every thing into account t with the information we have at this juncture.
How hard is it to predict how fucked you are at >10% unemplyment? [Reply]
Originally Posted by ghak99:
Freedom has a cost. It always has and always will. We live in a country who values it, even if it's been eroded recently.
It's why so many people laughed at the plans many of the medical community kept spouting. It simply wasn't/isn't possible to implement them here. You had to be detached from reality or flawed by emotion to even accept their possibility at the scale required.
The revolution meme where one side spouts "where your masks" and the other side replies with "Fuck you" is more real that many accept. This is the United States of America. We play by our own rules, even if it is our downfall at times.
If the people could physically see the enemy, you might have been able to rally a few more troops to turn the tide for a few more weeks. Months?? ...no way in hell.
Worth pointing out that popular opinion wasn't on the side of the Patriots during the Revolutionary War. [Reply]
Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief:
Please expand on your word salad... Are you talking about S. Korea... China?
Why do you just ignore 33 million unemployed and growing and the human costs in health and death that this will cost if it isn't rectified?
Oh, wait, are you talking about NY and sending Covid-19 patients back to Nursing homes? If so, my bad, that shouldn't have happened.
South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Vietnam, etc.
No one is arguing the economic costs of this or denying that 33 million people are currently unemployed. But yours is a bad faith argument on its surface and to its core. It assumes that all of those jobs that are lost will be forever lost, which is wholly incorrect. It also assumes that removing restrictions from the economy, when 70% of people oppose doing so, will somehow lead to all of these jobs coming back. It also assumes that opening up the economy won't have a secondary public health impact that leads to further economic disruption when the spread of the virus gets far worse.
The people making the sound arguments for the health of the economy are those urging for a reduction in caseload before opening up the economy, not those who think that you can just wish this away by plowing towards herd immunity. Past studies have demonstrated that locales that enacted harsher lockdown measures suffered less loss of life and better or no worse economic disruption than areas that didn't limit the spread of infectious pandemics like the 1918 flu. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
How hard is it to predict how ****ed you are at >10% unemplyment?
Will they be unemployed for ever?
The elderly are part of the economy, hospitals, drug companies, nursing home a lot of jobs revolve around them as well, I know not everyone with get in their feet at the same time or ever again , but the will still get the opportunity. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Iceland, Vietnam, etc.
No one is arguing the economic costs of this or denying that 33 million people are currently unemployed. But yours is a bad faith argument on its surface and to its core. It assumes that all of those jobs that are lost will be forever lost, which is wholly incorrect. It also assumes that removing restrictions from the economy, when 70% of people oppose doing so, will somehow lead to all of these jobs coming back. It also assumes that opening up the economy won't have a secondary public health impact that leads to further economic disruption when the spread of the virus gets far worse.
The people making the sound arguments for the health of the economy are those urging for a reduction in caseload before opening up the economy, not those who think that you can just wish this away by plowing towards herd immunity. Past studies have demonstrated that locales that enacted harsher lockdown measures suffered less loss of life and better or no worse economic disruption than areas that didn't limit the spread of infectious pandemics like the 1918 flu.
4 countries that are islands (South Korea is effectively a island) and one I wouldn't trust any health reporting from.
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
NYC shows 3.5 per 100,000 not 16.5. There have been 309 deaths total under 50 with 244 of them having underlying conditions that include only -
Notice obesity is not listed as an underlying condition.
And hey lets use the one city that is an outlier and ignore the other 310MM people in the country that would drive the numbers down right?
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
When talking about flu or H1N1 you are using CDC estimates not actual numbers. Right now we have confirmed laboratory deaths way higher than either of those estimates from CDC.
When this pandemic ends the CDC will do an after action estimate and you can bet that estimate will be dramatically higher than probably those 2 combined.
This just isn't true. We are testing anyone that dies in the hospital or at home who had symptoms of Covid-19 from the start. In fact, the CDC is having anyone with similar symptoms to Covid-19 be list as a probable Covid-19 deaths and those are in all of the counts we see. When comparing deaths this year to probable deaths during previous years for the same time period, we are under in some weeks and over in some, but the over is less than amount of Covid deaths. H1N1, killed more young and healthy, it's just a fact, and the CDC admitted they didn't have testing capabilities to test everyone who they thought had H1N1 at the time. This has been linked previously in this thread. [Reply]