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 stumppy:
Everyone is free to look through your post history in this thread.
Maybe you can find another Dr who claims to have the cure for covid. You remember that bullshit you were pushing, don't you?
That's just one off the top of my head.
Originally Posted by Hawker007:
Ok, there was a graph posted this week in this thread from the CDC or KDHE, can’t recall which. It stated cases in mask mandated counties have decreased 6% and non mask mandated counties have increased by like 200%. I thought this was related.
It is and was. The initial claim was that the masked counties dropped by 6%, etc. Then a couple of days later the Sentinel, for the 4th time, pointed out the bullshit coming from the state of Kansas. Essentially a Doctor from Ottowa University explained that the state was using a 7 day rolling average of the "rate of change" of cases to show a decline.
The doctor explained that it was misleading and that if you look at the actual cases per 100k population you can see a large increase in cases in mandated counties.
Remember a couple months back the state tried to say similar but they used a different axis on the non-mandated graph than they did on the mandated graph to give the appearance that mandated counties were going better when in reality they were doing the same.
The entire thing is not necessarily do masks work but do mask mandates actually work? Some people want to assume that a mask mandate means everyone automatically wears a mask by default and that no mandate means no one will wear a mask by default. Neither of which are true.
Basically this:
Originally Posted by :
KDHE data shows there were 411 cases per 100,000 of population on July 3 in the 24 counties that CDC researchers say adopted the governor’s order. By August 24 those counties experienced a 207% increase to 1,262 cases per 100,000. (The CDC report ends on August 23 but KDHE hasn’t published data for that day.) The other 81 counties went from 825 cases per 100,000 to 1,271 cases, for an increase of just 54%.
Originally Posted by petegz28:
The actual numbers bear out what the Sentinel article states. At least I have yet to see any numbers that say otherwise. Some just refuse to accept the fact that a mask mandate does not mean cases drop by default. I know here in JoCo we have had a mask mandate since July 3rd and cases have done the opposite of go down.
And to clarify they are saying cases per 100k population are up 207% in mask mandated counties.
Originally Posted by petegz28:
It is and was. The initial claim was that the masked counties dropped by 6%, etc. Then a couple of days later the Sentinel, for the 4th time, pointed out the bullshit coming from the state of Kansas. Essentially a Doctor from Ottowa University explained that the state was using a 7 day rolling average of the "rate of change" of cases to show a decline.
The doctor explained that it was misleading and that if you look at the actual cases per 100k population you can see a large increase in cases in mandated counties.
Remember a couple months back the state tried to say similar but they used a different axis on the non-mandated graph than they did on the mandated graph to give the appearance that mandated counties were going better when in reality they were doing the same.
The entire thing is not necessarily do masks work but do mask mandates actually work? Some people want to assume that a mask mandate means everyone automatically wears a mask by default and that no mandate means no one will wear a mask by default. Neither of which are true.
Basically this:
I don't think either you or the Sentinel were understanding what was being measured. What was being measured wasn't the cumulative total of cases per 100K over that time period, but rather, the 7 day average number of new cases per 100K population. If you look at the raw data, it pretty clearly shows that counties that have mask mandates had a much lower rate of new cases per 100K. This distinction becomes much more pronounced if you factor in the most recent data. Here is a brief example of the data (cumulative) and not standardized per 100K populations looking at 4 random counties in Kansas; two with mask mandates (Shawnee and Sedgwick) and two without (Trego and Rooks):
Considering that Shawnee and Sedgwick have a combined population of ~693K vs a combined population of 7086 for Rooks and Trego, for example, then yes, on a per 100K population level, KDHE data is really very solid.
You simply don't understand that, and it is also why no other news outlets have picked up the Sentinel story: the writers on the Sentinel are too stupid to understand the data as well.
Allen Atchison Bourbon Crawford Dickinson Douglas Franklin Jewell Johnson Marshall Mitchell Montgomery Neosho Saline Shawnee Wyandotte
Counties opted in to the mask mandate in July. Towns within the counties of Crowley, Riley & Sedgwick opted in while those counties as a whole opted out.
Since Kansas couldn't ass some intern or minimum wage data entry goon to publicize an excel sheet: I had to come up with one myself. So I make no claim that I was 100% accurate in inputting the raw numbers into said sheet.
That being said,
Between July 8 and November 18, the counties with mask mandates including CL, RL and SG had a period to period average per county increase of 1634%. (342 cases per 100,000k July; 5943 in November.)
The counties that opted out in that span had an average increase of 1577% (448 July; 7527 November.) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Allen Atchison Bourbon Crawford Dickinson Douglas Franklin Jewell Johnson Marshall Mitchell Montgomery Neosho Saline Shawnee Wyandotte
Counties opted in to the mask mandate in July. Towns within the counties of Crowley, Riley & Sedgwick opted in while those counties as a whole opted out.
Since Kansas couldn't ass some intern or minimum wage data entry goon to publicize an excel sheet: I had to come up with one myself. So I make no claim that I was 100% accurate in inputting the raw numbers into said sheet.
That being said,
Between July 8 and November 18, the counties with mask mandates including CL, RL and SG had a period to period average per county increase of 1634%. (342 cases per 100,000k July; 5943 in November.)
The counties that opted out in that span had an average increase of 1577% (448 July; 7527 November.)
Not as good as the mRNA ones but it will be significantly cheaper and only requires normal refrigeration. Should be good enough to stop covid from spreading though.
Originally Posted by :
A COVID-19 vaccine being developed by the University of Oxford and British pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca was found to have an average efficacy rate of 70% following a large-scale trial. The trial involved two separate dosing regimens, one which showed a 90% efficacy rate, and the other with 62%.
The role of mortality displacement
"Our study shows that all-cause mortality was largely unchanged during the epidemic as compared to the previous four years in Norway and Sweden, two countries which employed very different strategies against the epidemic," emphasize study authors in this medRxiv paper.
In other words, excess mortality from COVID-19 may be less conspicuous than previously perceived in Sweden, while mortality displacement may be used to explain at least part of the observed findings.
More specifically, mortality displacement implies temporarily increased mortality (i.e., excess mortality) in a certain population as a result of external events, which likely arises because individuals in vulnerable groups die weeks or months earlier than they would otherwise – primarily due to the timing or severity of the unusual external event. The excess mortality is, thus, predated or followed by time periods of lower than expected mortality. https://www.news-medical.net/news/20...-pandemic.aspx [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
Not as good as the mRNA ones but it will be significantly cheaper and only requires normal refrigeration. Should be good enough to stop covid from spreading though.
So...use the more effective dosing schedule and get to 90%.
Unless the regimen is particularly unique in its adherence, it seems like there is another 90% option.
EDIT: There's nothing particularly difficult about the Oxford vaccine. The 90% level of efficacy was achieved when using a two dose series wherein a half dose is followed by a full-strength dose.
Also, the FDA approved an EUA for Regeneron's monoclonal antibody regimen for mild-to-moderate COVID. Because they are antibodies they'll need to be given via IV, and their use is not indicated for patients that require oxygen or a ventilator, but it's another tool for clinicians to utilize. [Reply]
