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 Lzen:
Ok, now this is a legitimate argument. But I would like to know what the doctors that proclaim its benefits would have to say about that.
And I would also like to know what do you guys think these people have to benefit from promoting this drug that is cheap? What do the people that are discounting this drug have to benefit from doing that?
People promoting hydroxychloroquine at this point have a lot more invested in not being wrong than following evidence-based practices. Also, touting a potential "game-changer" has the effect of lessening the potential threat of the virus, which, if you need a robust economy, would have ancillary electoral benefits. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Everyone knew this until yesterday.....
Originally Posted by :
Why don't masks protect the wearer?
There are several possible reasons why masks don't offer significant protection. First, masks may not do much without eye protection. We know from animal and laboratory experiments that influenza or other coronaviruses can enter the eyes and travel to the nose and into the respiratory system.
While standard and special masks provide incomplete protection, special masks combined with goggles appear to provide complete protection in laboratory experiments. However, there are no studies in real-world situations measuring the results of combined mask and eyewear.
The apparent minimal impact of wearing masks might also be because people didn't use them properly. For example, one study found less than half of the participants wore them "most of the time". People may also wear masks inappropriately, or touch a contaminated part of the mask when removing it and transfer the virus to their hand, then their eyes and thus to the nose.
Masks may also provide a false sense of security, meaning wearers might do riskier things such as going into crowded spaces and places.
Originally Posted by Donger:
I'm well-aware of that.
Now, it seems you agree that masks can stop droplet spread from the wearer. Is that correct?
Originally Posted by Donger:
Tell me, pete: if masks can stop doplet spread in one direction, what makes you think they can't or don't in the other?
Again.....
Originally Posted by :
Why don't masks protect the wearer?
There are several possible reasons why masks don't offer significant protection. First, masks may not do much without eye protection. We know from animal and laboratory experiments that influenza or other coronaviruses can enter the eyes and travel to the nose and into the respiratory system.
While standard and special masks provide incomplete protection, special masks combined with goggles appear to provide complete protection in laboratory experiments. However, there are no studies in real-world situations measuring the results of combined mask and eyewear.
The apparent minimal impact of wearing masks might also be because people didn't use them properly. For example, one study found less than half of the participants wore them "most of the time". People may also wear masks inappropriately, or touch a contaminated part of the mask when removing it and transfer the virus to their hand, then their eyes and thus to the nose.
Masks may also provide a false sense of security, meaning wearers might do riskier things such as going into crowded spaces and places
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Just so we're clear: you don't claim to know anything, but you're mocking the lack of increased cases in Florida while cases cases and hospitalizations have increased. You don't see the irony here?
Of course there are going to be increased cases and hospitalizations when you open back up. Most people that aren’t morons knew that. Is it getting out of hand? Are hospitals being overrun?
It was supposed to be MUCH worse than it has been between locking down “too late” and opening up “too early”. People were predicting doom and gloom 8 weeks ago and we’re still waiting. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lzen:
It was earlier in this thread and you even made a comment something about the virus's advanced progress on the patients. I don't remember exactly and I'm not about to go search for it but those were my takeaways.
But hey, if you're gonna proclaim yourself the smart one amongst stupid people like us then you are going to take some heat from time to time.
Study finds use of chloroquine or #hydroxychloroquine with or without a macrolide is linked to increased rates of mortality and heart arrhythmias among hospital patients with #COVID19 (2/4) pic.twitter.com/AYY5MM2nKL
Originally Posted by Donger:
The CDC doesn't say that masks don't stop droplet spread, pete. It's just common sense that if masks can prevent droplet spread in one direction, it will in the other. Do you dispute that?
Now, does wearing a nose and mouth mask prevent a droplet from getting in your eyes? No, of course not. The article you kindly posted mentions that.
You're a fucking idiot. This has now been posted TWICE for you. Call the CDC if you don't like it.
Originally Posted by :
By contrast, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States has recently recommended everyone wear a (cloth) mask. However, this is to prevent infected people passing on the infection, not to prevent the wearer getting infected.
Why are you posting that again? It doesn't say that masks don't stop droplets in both directions.
Anyway, where it this from?
By contrast, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States has recently recommended everyone wear a (cloth) mask. However, this is to prevent infected people passing on the infection, not to prevent the wearer getting infected. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Why are you posting that again? It doesn't say that masks don't stop droplets in both directions.
Anyway, where it this from?
By contrast, the Centres for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the United States has recently recommended everyone wear a (cloth) mask. However, this is to prevent infected people passing on the infection, not to prevent the wearer getting infected.
Because apparently you need things posted twice. Once for each eye, I guess. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Of course there are going to be increased cases and hospitalizations when you open back up. Most people that aren’t morons knew that. Is it getting out of hand? Are hospitals being overrun?
It was supposed to be MUCH worse than it has been between locking down “too late” and opening up “too early”.
Is it getting out of hand? We'll see. I hope not. But this ties back to patience: it's not only patience in lockdown, but patience before declaring victory. There weren't an unimaginable amount of cases nationwide before SIPOs began. That's what makes exponential growth so insidious--it looks so gradual that it can be ignored, until it can't. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Address what I said or shut the **** up. Dude is full of shit when he wants to condemn people for spreading misinformation when he’s pushing a conspiracy theory based on the word of one woman with a criminal history.
You all can continue to act like a guy on CP is the leading expert on Corona if you want to.
One guy posts continuously helpful evidence based articles, breaks down the more advanced papers for layman like to better discern significance, and gives his perspective as a medical professional and the other is a bitch ass hoe. Hamas is not the one that’s full of shit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
There is no data to support giving it early at this point. When dealing with evidence-based medicine, you need evidence. Given that no trials have come forth establishing a protective mechanism for hydroxychloroquine either to prevent infection or early in infection, saying that it needs to be given early is just conjecture, especially when you lack a control group to compare it against.
Antivirals in general will help more when started sooner than later (Tamiflu being a great example), but it doesn't mean that the help drops to zero once you have a moderate infection.
I get what you are saying, but your second paragraph points to what they have been saying that it being an antiviral, the key is the sooner the better. My bigger point is why waste studies on claims that most doctors that are advocates have largely not made? Focus on proving or disproving the point-in-time that giving the drug may help. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
People promoting hydroxychloroquine at this point have a lot more invested in not being wrong than following evidence-based practices. Also, touting a potential "game-changer" has the effect of lessening the potential threat of the virus, which, if you need a robust economy, would have ancillary electoral benefits.
Originally Posted by Kidd Lex:
One guy posts continuously helpful evidence based articles, breaks down the more advanced papers for layman like to better discern significance, and gives his perspective as a medical professional and the other is a bitch ass hoe. Hamas is not the one that’s full of shit.
