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 dirk digler:
Being 28 in 1918 isn’t like being 28 today. Life expectancy back then was 36-46 so you were practically an old man.
Late to the party, but these kinds of stats (about how low life expectancy has been in the past) are always really misleading. Life expectancy has climbed primarily because we've figured out how to stop most things from killing kids. If you looked at life expectancy only among people who reach adulthood, it's gone up a tiny bit over the years, but not near as much as you think. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigBeauford:
I take it this means that little ones are super spreaders probably because of their poor hygiene habits.
Also seems to indicate the virus settles in a different place, at least for this cohort, in the young kids. Being in the upper respiratory (nose) makes it more spreadable via snot (which little kids love) and regular ol' breathing. So, they'd be the ones who really need to be wearing masks--good luck there! (But it could be done...)
I've got a boy entering kindergarten and a 3yo girl. Also work with kids who have developmental disabilities in the same age range. Fairly interested in how this plays out.
Potential good news, is that what was studied is "viral nucleic acid, rather than infectious virus"--likely contributes to the explanation for better outcomes, on the whole, for those under 5. Some sort of protection factor present that reduces chance of 'full' infection, but keeps them as a vector for transmission. Cross-immunity from more recent infection with other coronaviruses? [Reply]
Originally Posted by solidgold:
Also seems to indicate the virus settles in a different place, at least for this cohort, in the young kids. Being in the upper respiratory (nose) makes it more spreadable via snot (which little kids love) and regular ol' breathing. So, they'd be the ones who really need to be wearing masks--good luck there! (But it could be done...)
I've got a boy entering kindergarten and a 3yo girl. Also work with kids who have developmental disabilities in the same age range. Fairly interested in how this plays out.
Potential good news, is that what was studied is "viral nucleic acid, rather than infectious virus"--likely contributes to the explanation for better outcomes, on the whole, for those under 5. Some sort of protection factor present that reduces chance of 'full' infection, but keeps them as a vector for transmission. Cross-immunity from more recent infection with other coronaviruses?
I wonder if the factors that contribute to small children being hyper-resilient to disease contributes to this. I can't remember the course, but kids essentially have heightened abilities to fight off disease, but when they no longer can they will just "crash" or fall off that cliff. Adults are a much more gradual decline when responding to disease states. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Kidd Lex:
That's unacceptable. Results 13 days later are damn near pointless.
If I drive East for a test I could get results within an hour. If I drive West for a test it's taking 7-10 days and has been getting closer to 12 days recently.
I understand the difference in tests, but the 10-12 day results really are nearly worthless. The time lag has defeated the whole point of the test and is merely some statistic for other people to talk about. [Reply]
Many people seem to be glossing over what this thing is doing to the kids.
Our school district is very worried about what is happening to the bottom third of the kids who basically disappeared. Some of the teachers made in home visits on their own time in preparation for whatever this year may bring, and it's not good. The local calls to domestic issues and the amount of depression that is setting in is going to have some serious consequences for a long time. Some areas are even trying to recruit extra child development and mental health workers to handle the amount of depression related issues.
It's really interesting how the older population is basically split down a tight line on this. The "I'm going to die if abc doesn't happen" versus "I've lived my life, the kids need xyz" divide is some good people watching. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Late to the party, but these kinds of stats (about how low life expectancy has been in the past) are always really misleading. Life expectancy has climbed primarily because we've figured out how to stop most things from killing kids. If you looked at life expectancy only among people who reach adulthood, it's gone up a tiny bit over the years, but not near as much as you think.
Well, and there were also a couple, y'know, World Wars back then.
Those were not particularly kind to those aged 18-30. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ghak99:
Many people seem to be glossing over what this thing is doing to the kids.
Our school district is very worried about what is happening to the bottom third of the kids who basically disappeared. Some of the teachers made in home visits on their own time in preparation for whatever this year may bring, and it's not good. The local calls to domestic issues and the amount of depression that is setting in is going to have some serious consequences for a long time. Some areas are even trying to recruit extra child development and mental health workers to handle the amount of depression related issues.
It's really interesting how the older population is basically split down a tight line on this. The "I'm going to die if abc doesn't happen" versus "I've lived my life, the kids need xyz" divide is some good people watching.
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Late to the party, but these kinds of stats (about how low life expectancy has been in the past) are always really misleading. Life expectancy has climbed primarily because we've figured out how to stop most things from killing kids. If you looked at life expectancy only among people who reach adulthood, it's gone up a tiny bit over the years, but not near as much as you think.
Originally Posted by ghak99:
Many people seem to be glossing over what this thing is doing to the kids.
Our school district is very worried about what is happening to the bottom third of the kids who basically disappeared. Some of the teachers made in home visits on their own time in preparation for whatever this year may bring, and it's not good. The local calls to domestic issues and the amount of depression that is setting in is going to have some serious consequences for a long time. Some areas are even trying to recruit extra child development and mental health workers to handle the amount of depression related issues.
It's really interesting how the older population is basically split down a tight line on this. The "I'm going to die if abc doesn't happen" versus "I've lived my life, the kids need xyz" divide is some good people watching.
I sure hope this doesn't get glossed over. Child abuse numbers are down and (this time) that's not a good thing. The abuse didn't just stop, it is just much less visible because schools are a primary source of reporting and much less general public interaction happening that makes it easier to hide. All of our current stressors, as you mentioned, are only exacerbating the likelihood and severity of abuse and neglect. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ghak99:
Many people seem to be glossing over what this thing is doing to the kids.
Our school district is very worried about what is happening to the bottom third of the kids who basically disappeared. Some of the teachers made in home visits on their own time in preparation for whatever this year may bring, and it's not good. The local calls to domestic issues and the amount of depression that is setting in is going to have some serious consequences for a long time. Some areas are even trying to recruit extra child development and mental health workers to handle the amount of depression related issues.
It's really interesting how the older population is basically split down a tight line on this. The "I'm going to die if abc doesn't happen" versus "I've lived my life, the kids need xyz" divide is some good people watching.
I know there's lots of talk about the mental aspect of social distancing for kids. But I'm not sure that it's as simple as just "Send them back to school because they might get depressed at home." It shouldn't be the school's responsibility to make up for a shitty home environment. That's a separate issue that should be addressed separately. The decision to send kids back to school shouldn't be driven by the fear that they'll not be in a good environment at home otherwise. That's not really fair. [Reply]
Originally Posted by solidgold:
I sure hope this doesn't get glossed over. Child abuse numbers are down and (this time) that's not a good thing. The abuse didn't just stop, it is just much less visible because schools are a primary source of reporting and much less general public interaction happening that makes it easier to hide. All of our current stressors, as you mentioned, are only exacerbating the likelihood and severity of abuse and neglect.
So.... address child abuse by sending them to school? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
So.... address child abuse by sending them to school?
Hell no. I agree with you too. Not the school's responsibility. Just a tough situation all around on this issue and definitely no easy solution. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
I know there's lots of talk about the mental aspect of social distancing for kids. But I'm not sure that it's as simple as just "Send them back to school because they might get depressed at home." It shouldn't be the school's responsibility to make up for a shitty home environment. That's a separate issue that should be addressed separately. The decision to send kids back to school shouldn't be driven by the fear that they'll not be in a good environment at home otherwise. That's not really fair.
Kids being depressed also isn’t just or only from shitty home environment. So to completely dismiss that is just as ignorant as thinking it’s also up to the school to fix that depression.
There is a middle area to that mental aspect, not a one way or other like you are painting it. [Reply]
