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.”
Updated proofs of our paper published in Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease : "Early treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: A retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France."https://t.co/Rmfqolt1uHpic.twitter.com/o7qIjNw2zd
"Those receiving the triple-drug combination had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of recovering enough to be discharged, and were 44 percent less likely to die, compared to the double-drug combination."
Now are you guys going to immediately deny or read it? Science is always changing right?
The mean age was 43.6 years (standard deviation (sd), 15.6 years
Forty-six patients (4.3%) were classified into the PClinO group including 10 patients transferred into ICU of whom 2 died, 6 who died in conventional hospital units, and 30 additional patients who were hospitalized for 10 days or more (update April 18th).*
overall 0.9% case fatality rate (CFR) for these 1061 patients.
The majority of patients in our work had relatively mild disease at admission (95%
This was a retrospective analysis with no control group. I'm not really sure what conclusion to make as it was not compared to a group without treatment. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
Yeah, well, if you spend time in D.C it's easy to see how opinions of him devolved and why. Of course in this thread I'm suppose to act like i never read why opinions of him have soured in a conversation about why he's not trusted. Seems silly to me. It's like a giant elephant in the room that we're suppose to avoid because it's political, but the entire subject is rooted in politics.
If this next paragraph gets me in trouble so be it.
My opinion is that in the early goings of this, he was seen as sort of a comforting figure. You had this articulate, intelligent and good spirited man as Trump's advisor telling the public to be calm, at a time when the WH seemed rather unsure and rather dismissive of the subject.
America needed a guy that they could trust when #$%^ was bumbling his early days through this and was clear that he needed an advisor. In comes this guy that is a leading expert since Reagan, that the WH has thrown into the public and told was THE MAN on the subject. He had the charisma and intellect and most of America gravitated towards him. He comforted America, letting people feel like they had the right guy to guide us through this.
Next thing you know he's doing interviews on certain media outlets and i'm reading threads that are rather trustworthy and fond of him.
And i still remember how opinions shifted within days when...well...anything more i could say from here would be crossing the line i guess.
You can draw a straight line from the ones who continually bash him and their political affiliation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SupDock:
The mean age was 43.6 years (standard deviation (sd), 15.6 years
Forty-six patients (4.3%) were classified into the PClinO group including 10 patients transferred into ICU of whom 2 died, 6 who died in conventional hospital units, and 30 additional patients who were hospitalized for 10 days or more (update April 18th).*
overall 0.9% case fatality rate (CFR) for these 1061 patients.
The majority of patients in our work had relatively mild disease at admission (95%
This was a retrospective analysis with no control group. I'm not really sure what conclusion to make as it was not compared to a group without treatment.
Remember a few pages back when I said not everyone would comprehend a drug trial the same way. Pepperidge farm remembers. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Any obvious changes? Looks like they keep revising the death figures upward, which isn't surprising given the relaxed restrictions.
It still shows hospital utilization as being well within capacity in the states I clicked through, so nothing terribly surprising there.
The level of uncertainty has gone up in some states. The death figures have been revised upwards in a lot of states.
It seems like the further along we get, the more uncertain the models become. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Originally it was meant to be a thread that wasn't bogged down in criticisms of the feds' response. I never would have guessed that Fauci would somehow become viewed as a political figure, but here we are.
My personal preference would be that the thread become a place to discuss evidence-based policy, but that's pretty much impossible to moderate.
I would not put all the negativity all on Fauci- the media is the one amplifying and twisting everything he says.
Fauci- mentions schools- saying they will need to take extra precautions to protect the kids.
Media- "Fauci says schools will stay closed in the fall until a vaccination!!"
The gap between what the media is reporting and the truth has never been wider. [Reply]
1) The cohort of treated patients is young with less severe disease. 95% of patients had a low NEWS score, meaning that their O2 levels, respiration rate, temperature, need for oxygen, and heart rate were either within normal limits, or just outside of.
2) Those with good outcomes were much younger on average than those with poor outcomes. The difference is 42.4 years old vs. 69.2 years. That kind of heterogeneity points to an outside factor other than the therapy as a likely cause--namely the age of the trial participants as being a better indicator of success than the therapy
3) Hydroxychloroquine levels were not associated with good outcomes
4) Those with poor virological outcomes had higher viral loads and had higher NEWS scores
5) A substantial number of patients were excluded without a reason given
6) 56 patients were treated who were only contacts of documented cases and were not positive cases themselves, and were included in the analysis. I have never seen that done in another study. That combined with the fact that 66 others were excluded for unspecified reasons raises some major red flags for me
7) Most importantly, this trial has no control group.
8) The author of this trial has committed several egregious ethical errors, including sharing his data with a lawyer who (falsely) claimed to be associated with Stanford before publication in order to tout its effectiveness. In the earlier, debunked study 14/16 patients in the control group were deemed cleared of the virus on Day 6 without any data collection taking place and one of the six patients he deemed virologically cleared in the azithromycin group actually tested positive for the virus afterwards.
"In 2018, after damning evaluations, Raoult’s principal laboratory groups were stripped of their association with two of France’s top public research institutions. Raoult was found to have produced an extraordinary number of publications but few of great quality. “It’s very easy to publish [expletive] when you know how publishing works,”
9) This study was not approved by ethics boards, which is major malfeasance. He claimed that it was and provided a link to approval of his first trial, but that only accounted for hydroxychloroquine use. In essence, he conducted a trial without disclosing the medications he was going to use for approval of an institutional review board. That would get you fired almost anywhere.
So, what does that leave us with:
We have a trial that pre-selected for patients with mild disease, with no control group, no randomization process, retrospective in nature, with serious questions about attrition bias, from an author who has been largely discredited and falsely claimed to obtain consent for using a medication that he did not actually receive.
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
How could anyone expect him to be 'right' 100% of the time
I think it comes from an unrealistic, or heightened expectation of what science is. And i understand why that is, since science is so often cited as the end-all-be-all for decision making when debating a subject.
But the truth is that science changes. All the time. As we learn more, we adapt our theories. But some don't see it that way. They see it more black and white. Science is always suppose to be right 100% of the time and it isn't suppose to adapt when we learn more. It's suppose to be right the very first time and when it's not, it's because it can't be trusted or there's some ulterior motive. [Reply]
Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15:
Assuming this isn't just the mother of all trolling jobs, I gotta say that if you live by this code it's amazing you ever come to a decision on anything in your life. Literally every person you've ever come in contact with, expert or otherwise has been "wrong" about something due to the situation being fluid and gaining new information.
You didn't read what I said so let me put it this way. If a doctor tells me I have strep throat I will listen to him and think little of it knowing he has never been 100% right.
If a doctor tells me I have cancer and I have 3 months to live you can bet your ass I am going to seek out the opinion of others.
Originally Posted by Detoxing:
I think it comes from an unrealistic, or heightened expectation of what science is. And i understand why that is, since science is so often cited as the end-all-be-all for decision making when debating a subject.
But the truth is that science changes. All the time. As we learn more, we adapt our theories. But some don't see it that way. They see it more black and white. Science is always suppose to be right 100% of the time and it isn't suppose to adapt when we learn more. It's suppose to be right the very first time and when it's not, it's because it can't be trusted or there's some ulterior motive.
Not that I expect anyone to take the 10 hours to watch it all, but this YouTube series on the history of science is fascinating. It's all stuff you've probably heard bits and pieces of, but it's fun to rapidly run through all of the crazy twists and turns that "science" has made over the millenia.
Probably my favorite thing about it is that it points out all the ridiculous stuff people used to believe (e.g., the four elements are earth, air, fire, and water), but by walking through it historically you can see how they got there and the logic of it.
Someday, we'll probably look back at our COVID response and laugh at how dumb we were. But it's the best we can do for now. [Reply]
New study shows that the Abbot ID NOW #COVID19 test missed a third of the samples detected positive by Cepheid's Xpert Xpress (GeneXpert) when using nasopharyngeal swabs transported in viral transport media and more than 48% when using dry nasal swabs. https://t.co/kOCQIku5MP
— Scott Gottlieb, MD (@ScottGottliebMD) May 13, 2020
Originally Posted by Halfcan:
I would not put all the negativity all on Fauci- the media is the one amplifying and twisting everything he says.
Fauci- mentions schools- saying they will need to take extra precautions to protect the kids.
Media- "Fauci says schools will stay closed in the fall until a vaccination!!"
The gap between what the media is reporting and the truth has never been wider.
Yup CNN just got busted yesterday for manipulating information from a poll on Covid stating that 68% of Americans wouldn't go back to normal activity until there was vaccine but that's not motley what the poll data said. The data said 68% of Americans thought a vaccine was important. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Yup CNN just got busted yesterday for manipulating information from a poll on Covid stating that 68% of Americans wouldn't go back to normal activity until there was vaccine but that's not motley what the poll data said.
I've tried to keep the politics out of this and we all know there has always been some political motives with this but over the last week or so it just seems like things have gotten snarkier with this in the media. Which actually tells me things are probably getting better and they want to milk it all they can. [Reply]
