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.”
This article illustrates why I will never slavishly follow "THE SCIENCE."
I find the state of discussion about "science" these days to be very disheartening. It's become tribal, which is the opposite of the point. I think some people feel like it's their duty to "follow the science" when there really is no such thing, and others feel like they have to push back because "the science" can be wrong.
I think it's helpful to consider that weather forecasts are probably a good example of how science works in regard to really complex systems (like virus spread). Meteorologists are reasonably good at giving us an idea of what we think will happen, but just because a weather forecast says it's likely going to rain doesn't mean that it absolutely will.
If rain is in the forecast, it's probably prudent to take an umbrella, and people who do so are likely going to be better off more often than not. However, it's not completely insane to say you're not going to take an umbrella because you don't trust the forecast or that you will just suffer the consequences.
I've said many times that the downfall of debate in the modern age is the lack of nuance, and this is just another example of it. "Science" is a great tool that can generally point us in the right direction, but it's not infallible. I kind of wish more recommendations had probabilities or confidence levels as caveats, but I'm sure that that would just confuse everyone. C'est la vie. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I find the state of discussion about "science" these days to be very disheartening. It's become tribal, which is the opposite of the point. I think some people feel like it's their duty to "follow the science" when there really is no such thing, and others feel like they have to push back because "the science" can be wrong.
I think it's helpful to consider that weather forecasts are probably a good example of how science works in regard to really complex systems (like virus spread). Meteorologists are reasonably good at giving us an idea of what we think will happen, but just because a weather forecast says it's likely going to rain doesn't mean that it absolutely will.
If rain is in the forecast, it's probably prudent to take an umbrella, and people who do so are likely going to be better off more often than not. However, it's not completely insane to say you're not going to take an umbrella because you don't trust the forecast or that you will just suffer the consequences.
I've said many times that the downfall of debate in the modern age is the lack of nuance, and this is just another example of it. "Science" is a great tool that can generally point us in the right direction, but it's not infallible. I kind of wish more recommendations had probabilities or confidence levels as caveats, but I'm sure that that would just confuse everyone. C'est la vie.
"Science" is just a cop out.
People will use it to do whatever. Our understanding of things change, that doesn't mean the "science" was wrong.
The problem we're seeing now is that when we find out we were wrong on certain things, no one is willing to say "yeah, we have new info, we were wrong, lets change and move forward". [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
"Science" is just a cop out.
People will use it to do whatever. Our understanding of things change, that doesn't mean the "science" was wrong.
The problem we're seeing now is that when we find out we were wrong on certain things, no one is willing to say "yeah, we have new info, we were wrong, lets change and move forward".
These days, admitting you were wrong is seen as a weakness, and doing so will almost certainly be used to generate sound bites that will be used against you. That's a huge problem. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I find the state of discussion about "science" these days to be very disheartening. It's become tribal, which is the opposite of the point. I think some people feel like it's their duty to "follow the science" when there really is no such thing, and others feel like they have to push back because "the science" can be wrong.
I think it's helpful to consider that weather forecasts are probably a good example of how science works in regard to really complex systems (like virus spread). Meteorologists are reasonably good at giving us an idea of what we think will happen, but just because a weather forecast says it's likely going to rain doesn't mean that it absolutely will.
If rain is in the forecast, it's probably prudent to take an umbrella, and people who do so are likely going to be better off more often than not. However, it's not completely insane to say you're not going to take an umbrella because you don't trust the forecast or that you will just suffer the consequences.
I've said many times that the downfall of debate in the modern age is the lack of nuance, and this is just another example of it. "Science" is a great tool that can generally point us in the right direction, but it's not infallible. I kind of wish more recommendations had probabilities or confidence levels as caveats, but I'm sure that that would just confuse everyone. C'est la vie.
Exactly, and good analogy. It far too often turns into black and white arguments about who's right and wrong, yet none of that has anything to do with science.
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I find the state of discussion about "science" these days to be very disheartening. It's become tribal, which is the opposite of the point. I think some people feel like it's their duty to "follow the science" when there really is no such thing, and others feel like they have to push back because "the science" can be wrong.
I think it's helpful to consider that weather forecasts are probably a good example of how science works in regard to really complex systems (like virus spread). Meteorologists are reasonably good at giving us an idea of what we think will happen, but just because a weather forecast says it's likely going to rain doesn't mean that it absolutely will.
If rain is in the forecast, it's probably prudent to take an umbrella, and people who do so are likely going to be better off more often than not. However, it's not completely insane to say you're not going to take an umbrella because you don't trust the forecast or that you will just suffer the consequences.
I've said many times that the downfall of debate in the modern age is the lack of nuance, and this is just another example of it. "Science" is a great tool that can generally point us in the right direction, but it's not infallible. I kind of wish more recommendations had probabilities or confidence levels as caveats, but I'm sure that that would just confuse everyone. C'est la vie.
Fake news. Them damn weather scientists are just telling you to bring an umbrella so they can get more money making weather forecasts. You're a sheep if you take an umbrella. That's what's wrong with this country. Too many people scared and clutching their umbrellas because "Science" told them too. I happen to know several scientists who work for Big Umbrella. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Originally Posted by DaFace:
These days, admitting you were wrong is seen as a weakness, and doing so will almost certainly be used to generate sound bites that will be used against you. That's a huge problem.
I always viewed that as a sign of intelligence ,jus like being able to say " I don't know".
A lot of people consider a misdiagnosis in medicine as incompetence , it could be but more often than not is much more complicated and just not a black or white answer.
"it's complicated" is never good enough of an answer, but trying to explain it becomes too complicated for people to comprehend also. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
I always viewed that as a sign of intelligence ,jus like being able to say " I don't know".
A lot of people consider a misdiagnosis in medicine as incompetence , it could be but more often than not is much more complicated and just not a black or white answer.
"it's complicated" is never good enough of an answer, but trying to explain it becomes too complicated for people to comprehend also.
Yeah, and if you spend too much time explaining there are a lot of unknowns, studies take time, it's not black and white, information and recommendations can change base on learning more..... people will just say you're clueless and have no idea.
So, you're basically left with the idea that most people will do whatever the hell they want no matter what you say or how well you explain it, because Dunning Kruger and social media diagrams. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
Fake news. Them damn weather scientists are just telling you to bring an umbrella so they can get more money making weather forecasts. You're a sheep if you take an umbrella. That's what's wrong with this country. Too many people scared and clutching their umbrellas because "Science" told them too. I happen to know several scientists who work for Big Umbrella. You have no idea what you're talking about.
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
Yeah, and if you spend too much time explaining there are a lot of unknowns, studies take time, it's not black and white, information and recommendations can change base on learning more..... people will just say you're clueless and have no idea.
So, you're basically left with the idea that most people will do whatever the hell they want no matter what you say or how well you explain it, because Dunning Kruger and social media diagrams.
If you do manage to get past the comprehension aspect you then have to punch through the stubbornness part , stupid/stubborn is an impossible combo, people would rather be wrong than admit they are wrong. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I've said many times that the downfall of debate in the modern age is the lack of nuance, and this is just another example of it. "Science" is a great tool that can generally point us in the right direction, but it's not infallible. I kind of wish more recommendations had probabilities or confidence levels as caveats, but I'm sure that that would just confuse everyone. C'est la vie.
"Tyranny is the deliberate removal of nuance." - Albert Maysles [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
Fake news. Them damn weather scientists are just telling you to bring an umbrella so they can get more money making weather forecasts. You're a sheep if you take an umbrella. That's what's wrong with this country. Too many people scared and clutching their umbrellas because "Science" told them too. I happen to know several scientists who work for Big Umbrella. You have no idea what you're talking about.
And, well, if you decide to not take an umbrella then you cause everyone else to get rained on and I shall strictly enforce a rule that never again allows you to leave your house without an umbrella. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Fish:
Fake news. Them damn weather scientists are just telling you to bring an umbrella so they can get more money making weather forecasts. You're a sheep if you take an umbrella. That's what's wrong with this country. Too many people scared and clutching their umbrellas because "Science" told them too. I happen to know several scientists who work for Big Umbrella. You have no idea what you're talking about.
I find it slightly hilarious that Donger and Pete have been banned from this thread for months and they still have far and away the most posts in here. :-) [Reply]
