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 :
The economists created three possible unemployment rate scenarios. One assumes a hiring pace similar to that in other recoveries and shows a slow return to pre-pandemic job levels, with the unemployment rate staying above 10% at the beginning of next year. Another shows growth bouncing back in the second half of this year and staying strong in 2021, resulting in a much quicker drop in the jobless rate.
The most optimistic case assumes strong hiring following an end to coronavirus restrictions in July, with hiring rates returning to pre-outbreak levels by the end of the third quarter. It would require 9 million hires per month in July, August and September, a rate nearly four times that of the most robust period following the 2008 financial crisis.
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
Drug test don't tell companies what drugs they test positive for. Its a pass/fail system. Again HIPAA doesn't allow for companies to see PERSONAL medical information. Period.
I could see more companies making it part of the hiring process . Employer losing money towards sick days etc, people would be more likely to frequent a business that requires vaccines etc.. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jackkked:
I found this on the SanDiegoCounty.gov website this morning, not sure if all municipalities offer such information or not, but for those that are interested in knowing what is really going on, it could be useful.
This tells me that a 102 year old got COVID and lived through it [Reply]
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
Drug test don't tell companies what drugs they test positive for. Its a pass/fail system. Again HIPAA doesn't allow for companies to see PERSONAL medical information. Period.
You waive your privacy (consent to release) drug testing, for those specific results. Often managers are only told pass/fail, but that is not always true. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SupDock:
You waive your privacy (consent to release) drug testing, for those specific results. Often managers are only told pass/fail, but that is not always true.
Yes and again you are signing a waiver. But that is drug testing, which in the work place "Depending" has a viable reason to be asked.
Vaccines are going to be near impossible for companies to provide a valid reasoning for. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
I could see more companies making it part of the hiring process . Employer losing money towards sick days etc, people would be more likely to frequent a business that requires vaccines etc..
Lmao no
In no realistic world is this true or right. [Reply]
maybe not but the perception of a disease free environment is not a bad thing and just because it doesn't seem realistic doesn't mean it will never become reality. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
maybe not but the perception of a disease free environment is not a bad thing and just because it doesn't seem realistic doesn't mean it will never become reality.
If you think requiring employees to get a vaccine is going to create a disease free environment then you really need to do more research on vaccinations. [Reply]
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
If you think requiring employees to get a vaccine is going to create a disease free environment then you really need to do more research on vaccinations.
I said perception of one , I don’t think that , but you would be amazed what the average person will believe. Why do you think every business on tv is mentioning covid in their adds most of them probably are not doing anything much different than before. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
I said perception of one , I don’t think that , but you would be amazed what the average person will believe. Why do you think every business on tv is mentioning covid in their adds most of them probably are not doing anything much different than before.
Maybe because the news and the doomsday headlines have made people this way now. I hope I’m not coming across as argumentative towards you, I’m just tired of talking to people who assume that the faster we get a vaccine for this thing the better. You’re not really even saying that, but you’re the only one quoting me and carrying on the conversation so I’m taking my frustrations out on you. :-)
I think most health care workers are rooting for an antibody over a rushed vaccine at this point. A good antibody drug could take the fatality rate down to levels that a vaccine might not even be required anymore in a perfect world. I know that’s definitely what I’m hoping for. [Reply]
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Maybe because the news and the doomsday headlines have made people this way now. I hope I’m not coming across as argumentative towards you, I’m just tired of talking to people who assume that the faster we get a vaccine for this thing the better. You’re not really even saying that, but you’re the only one quoting me and carrying on the conversation so I’m taking my frustrations out on you. :-)
I think most health care workers are rooting for an antibody over a rushed vaccine at this point. A good antibody drug could take the fatality rate down to levels that a vaccine might not even be required anymore in a perfect world. I know that’s definitely what I’m hoping for.
I agree , what is the likelihood of having an antibody drug vs a vaccine, I haven't looked it up so I really don't have a clue on the success rates on those. [Reply]
