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 KCUnited:
I agree with the outdoor AND moving around piece as a mitigation focus in some states. All our parks and trails opened this week and indoor dining opens as part of our (IL) phase 4 on Friday. Still no lakefront beaches or playgrounds though, which seems to be about lack of movement even though its outdoors.
The thing that's tricky about all of this is that it's all about risk factors, and none of them can be calculated easily based on the research we currently have. As long as there's a breeze, going to a beach seems pretty low-risk to me. Playgrounds? Eh, it's hard to keep kids apart there, though there hasn't been much to suggest that kids are common means of spread. I don't think I'd personally be worried about either of those two.
Dining indoors is still one thing I don't think I'll do any time soon. [Reply]
Originally Posted by sedated:
Its sad how delusional this belief is. You've been wrong 99.9% of the time, the only reason people stop interacting with you is because its like arguing with an insane person that has no connection to logic.
My favorite part is when he talks out of his ass and then later says he was being sarcastic.
Yet you needed basic math explained to you yesterday but you do you, bro [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
The thing that's tricky about all of this is that it's all about risk factors, and none of them can be calculated easily based on the research we currently have. As long as there's a breeze, going to a beach seems pretty low-risk to me. Playgrounds? Eh, it's hard to keep kids apart there, though there hasn't been much to suggest that kids are common means of spread. I don't think I'd personally be worried about either of those two.
Dining indoors is still one thing I don't think I'll do any time soon.
I agree for the most part. I'm not too concerned about any of them really, but feel, at least here, the decision makers are leaning heavily on their science adviser. Gathering points on our trails are still blocked off, promoting keeping everyone moving. Also, Lake Michigan beaches aren't the Bonzai Pipeline either. They can be narrow and the waters is still cold enough to kill you, so people are more likely to sit and gather than be up moving around. So like everywhere, what might work best here, might not be the best decision somewhere else. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
The thing that's tricky about all of this is that it's all about risk factors, and none of them can be calculated easily based on the research we currently have. As long as there's a breeze, going to a beach seems pretty low-risk to me. Playgrounds? Eh, it's hard to keep kids apart there, though there hasn't been much to suggest that kids are common means of spread. I don't think I'd personally be worried about either of those two.
Dining indoors is still one thing I don't think I'll do any time soon.
I doubt many people would be opposed to individuals distancing on a beach.
We are in an era where masking is a political statement, and many decisions don't seem closely married to data.
It's also unfortunate that as we learn more about the virus, people see it as a "gotcha" moment rather than support that the scientific method works, and we change our stance based on the most recent data (high level reproducible data) [Reply]
Originally Posted by SupDock:
It's also unfortunate that as we learn more about the virus, people see it as a "gotcha" moment rather than support that the scientific method works, and we change our stance based on the most recent data (high level reproducible data)
At its core, the most depressing thing about all of this for me has been realizing how few people understand that "science" is more about consensus than it is about doing a study. [Reply]
75% of these "record high cases" the media is reporting has come from 3 or 4 counties in SW Missouri. This is due to testing people at meat packing plants. The majority of these positive tests are asymptomatic.
Hospitalizations are at "an all time low" according to Dr. Williams. (They haven't updated our hospitalization count in a few days so I can't verify this)
The state has an "ample" supply of remdesivir. They have sent some extra doses to the Joplin area due to an increase in cases. [Reply]
Originally Posted by eDave:
Why don't you just tell me what you are trying achieve here instead of talking in code.
Off topic but you mentioned something about cigarette smoke earlier today or last night.
There have been several studies that have come out that have shown a lower rate of Covid-19 patients that are smokers. Like - statistically significant amounts lower. I don't feel like getting into a lot of detail but it is hypothesized that nicotine binds to the ACE-2 receptor, thus blocking the virus' entry point. The authors feel like it's a double edged sword because they don't want to encourage people to smoke, yet smoking seems to show some protective effect. An excerpt from one of the studies.
Originally Posted by :
"The risk of infection by COVID-19 appears to be reduced by half among current smokers"
These same studies have shown that smokers who do get diagnosed with covid-19 don't show any increased likelihood for adverse reactions (ICU admission, need for a ventilator, death)
I can find the studies and post them if you'd like. These aren't rinky dink 200 people studies either. One of them from Israel looked at a group of over 3 million individuals. A similar study from Mexico did the same. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lewdog:
You should summarize your thoughts on this.
We know that would lead to a day long pissing match. I have no desire to sit in front of an electronic device all day when there is this big beautiful world our there to enjoy and a family to spend time with. It's easier to post a link to summarize what myself and others have stated, but in a one stop shop. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
We know that would lead to a day long pissing match. I have no desire to sit in front of an electronic device all day when there is this big beautiful world our there to enjoy and a family to spend time with. It's easier to post a link to summarize what myself and others have stated, but in a one stop shop.
