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 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 agree with that, but it's actually worse than that.
If you say there is an 80% of rain and it doesn't rain you will be accused of being wrong.
If you buy fire insurance and your house doesn't burn down, it will be considered a waste of money.
If new evidence comes in and you change your position, well, you don't even want to go there... [Reply]
This article illustrates why I will never slavishly follow "THE SCIENCE."
Real science is not a fixed set of facts. It should be viewed as the most accurate human knowledge at the time. Science had some things wrong at the beginning of the pandemic. There are definitely still some parts of our knowledge that are wrong. Science is the process of moving toward the truth. “Trust the science” means based on our best knowledge right now, this is what we should do now. “Trust the science” means that we will have better information in the future and that policy will change over time, but that it will get better. “Trust the science” never means to stop asking questions, but reality requires us to make decisions now that have consequences today and in the future. Should I wear a mask or not? Should I get vaccinated or not? Should we take steps to generate energy differently than we do today? How are we to answer these questions: science? Politics? Gut feeling? Flip a coin?
If you don’t “trust the science” bloodletting is equally valid as a course of antibiotics. If you don’t “trust the science” you shouldn’t get on an airplane. We thought things like polywater (google it) and cold fusion were potential scientific breakthroughs in our past. “Trusting the science” has debunked them. Science is a process, not a set of fixed facts. But the process inevitably leads to more complete and accurate information overtime. The pursuit of truth is not a straight line. But, I cannot think of a single instance where more and more investigation according to the scientific method led us further from the truth. Trust the science. [Reply]
Originally Posted by cdcox:
Real science is not a fixed set of facts. It should be viewed as the most accurate human knowledge at the time. Science had some things wrong at the beginning of the pandemic. There are definitely still some parts of our knowledge that are wrong. Science is the process of moving toward the truth. “Trust the science” means based on our best knowledge right now, this is what we should do now. “Trust the science” means that we will have better information in the future and that policy will change over time, but that it will get better. “Trust the science” never means to stop asking questions, but reality requires us to make decisions now that have consequences today and in the future. Should I wear a mask or not? Should I get vaccinated or not? Should we take steps to generate energy differently than we do today? How are we to answer these questions: science? Politics? Gut feeling? Flip a coin?
If you don’t “trust the science” bloodletting is equally valid as a course of antibiotics. If you don’t “trust the science” you shouldn’t get on an airplane. We thought things like polywater (google it) and cold fusion were potential scientific breakthroughs in our past. “Trusting the science” has debunked them. Science is a process, not a set of fixed facts. But the process inevitably leads to more complete and accurate information overtime. The pursuit of truth is not a straight line. But, I cannot think of a single instance where more and more investigation according to the scientific method led us further from the truth. Trust the science.
That's great and all but many people who use the term "trust the science" use it to mean trust the science that agrees with my feelings. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
That's great and all but many people who use the term "trust the science" use it to mean trust the science that agrees with my feelings.
Isn’t that the same for people who don’t trust science, they trust their feelings more.
Unfortunately the are more people at the wrong end of the spectrum in the general population . [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
Isn’t that the same for people who don’t trust science, they trust their feelings more.
Unfortunately the are more people at the wrong end of the spectrum in the general population .
Originally Posted by cdcox:
Real science is not a fixed set of facts. It should be viewed as the most accurate human knowledge at the time. Science had some things wrong at the beginning of the pandemic. There are definitely still some parts of our knowledge that are wrong. Science is the process of moving toward the truth. “Trust the science” means based on our best knowledge right now, this is what we should do now. “Trust the science” means that we will have better information in the future and that policy will change over time, but that it will get better. “Trust the science” never means to stop asking questions, but reality requires us to make decisions now that have consequences today and in the future. Should I wear a mask or not? Should I get vaccinated or not? Should we take steps to generate energy differently than we do today? How are we to answer these questions: science? Politics? Gut feeling? Flip a coin?
If you don’t “trust the science” bloodletting is equally valid as a course of antibiotics. If you don’t “trust the science” you shouldn’t get on an airplane. We thought things like polywater (google it) and cold fusion were potential scientific breakthroughs in our past. “Trusting the science” has debunked them. Science is a process, not a set of fixed facts. But the process inevitably leads to more complete and accurate information overtime. The pursuit of truth is not a straight line. But, I cannot think of a single instance where more and more investigation according to the scientific method led us further from the truth. Trust the science.
I mostly agree with you. However, my issue is that it's not clear what "the science" is. While I get frustrated at anti-maskers, the message wasn't "we think that there's only a 30% probability that masks will help, so we aren't recommending them right now" back in February. It was "masks aren't necessary." So then when things change, everyone points to that as if "the science" was wrong. And obviously there are dozens of similar examples throughout this whole thing.
I don't have an answer to all of this. If public messaging was more nuanced, I think it would help to clarify what "the science" is actually telling us. But then I'm sure we'd hear plenty of criticism that "the science" isn't clear so we shouldn't trust it at all.
Originally Posted by cdcox:
Real science is not a fixed set of facts. It should be viewed as the most accurate human knowledge at the time. Science had some things wrong at the beginning of the pandemic. There are definitely still some parts of our knowledge that are wrong. Science is the process of moving toward the truth. “Trust the science” means based on our best knowledge right now, this is what we should do now. “Trust the science” means that we will have better information in the future and that policy will change over time, but that it will get better. “Trust the science” never means to stop asking questions, but reality requires us to make decisions now that have consequences today and in the future. Should I wear a mask or not? Should I get vaccinated or not? Should we take steps to generate energy differently than we do today? How are we to answer these questions: science? Politics? Gut feeling? Flip a coin?
If you don’t “trust the science” bloodletting is equally valid as a course of antibiotics. If you don’t “trust the science” you shouldn’t get on an airplane. We thought things like polywater (google it) and cold fusion were potential scientific breakthroughs in our past. “Trusting the science” has debunked them. Science is a process, not a set of fixed facts. But the process inevitably leads to more complete and accurate information overtime. The pursuit of truth is not a straight line. But, I cannot think of a single instance where more and more investigation according to the scientific method led us further from the truth. Trust the science.
The problem, as DaFace put it, is transparency.
Throughout this pandemic, the message hasn't been "trust the science", it's "trust us, because we understand the science and you don't". [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
The problem, as DaFace put it, is transparency.
Throughout this pandemic, the message hasn't been "trust the science", it's "trust us, because we understand the science and you don't".
I'm sure it would crash and burn hard, but it would be interesting to have a running public dashboard of responses from a weekly survey of experts with just a bunch of yes/no questions that you could filter by field. I'd love to be able to check in at any time and see, for example, what percent of epidemiologists vs. economists think we should still have indoor mask mandates.
Again, way too nuanced for public consumption probably, but that's the kind of data I wish we had. I trust "the experts" collectively, but the information we tend to get today always seems very black and white when it's just coming from one source. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I'm sure it would crash and burn hard, but it would be interesting to have a running public dashboard of responses from a weekly survey of experts with just a bunch of yes/no questions that you could filter by field. I'd love to be able to check in at any time and see, for example, what percent of epidemiologists vs. economists think we should still have indoor mask mandates.
Again, way too nuanced for public consumption probably, but that's the kind of data I wish we had.
I'll be perfectly honest.
Despite some of the vitriol that is involved, I've learned WAY MORE from CP about this virus than any "legitimate" source.
That really shouldn't happen when it comes to something like this. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
I'll be perfectly honest.
Despite some of the vitriol that is involved, I've learned WAY MORE from CP about this virus than any "legitimate" source.
That really shouldn't happen when it comes to something like this.
It's tricky, though. Is there good information to be found in this thread? Definitely. Is there also a lot of complete and utter garbage? Absolutely. (Though to be fair 90% of it went away when Donger and Pete finally got dumped.)
Democratization of information relies on the recipients being able to sift through the junk to find the valuable. I'd probably argue that CPers are better than the general population at that because there's a lot of junk around here just as a matter of standard operation. Many people on Facebook and similar just don't have the practice to do that effectively.
The counterargument to everything I've been saying is that we've had people on here (and everywhere) doing their own "analysis" of the data with no expertise to do so this whole time, so that doesn't really work either.
Originally Posted by cdcox:
Real science is not a fixed set of facts. It should be viewed as the most accurate human knowledge at the time. Science had some things wrong at the beginning of the pandemic. There are definitely still some parts of our knowledge that are wrong. Science is the process of moving toward the truth. “Trust the science” means based on our best knowledge right now, this is what we should do now. “Trust the science” means that we will have better information in the future and that policy will change over time, but that it will get better. “Trust the science” never means to stop asking questions, but reality requires us to make decisions now that have consequences today and in the future. Should I wear a mask or not? Should I get vaccinated or not? Should we take steps to generate energy differently than we do today? How are we to answer these questions: science? Politics? Gut feeling? Flip a coin?
If you don’t “trust the science” bloodletting is equally valid as a course of antibiotics. If you don’t “trust the science” you shouldn’t get on an airplane. We thought things like polywater (google it) and cold fusion were potential scientific breakthroughs in our past. “Trusting the science” has debunked them. Science is a process, not a set of fixed facts. But the process inevitably leads to more complete and accurate information overtime. The pursuit of truth is not a straight line. But, I cannot think of a single instance where more and more investigation according to the scientific method led us further from the truth. Trust the science.
Where was this fabled "process" when whatever specialties making up the WHO's decision-makers ignored subject matter experts in favor of 60+ year old "conventional wisdom?" [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I mostly agree with you. However, my issue is that it's not clear what "the science" is. While I get frustrated at anti-maskers, the message wasn't "we think that there's only a 30% probability that masks will help, so we aren't recommending them right now" back in February. It was "masks aren't necessary." So then when things change, everyone points to that as if "the science" was wrong. And obviously there are dozens of similar examples throughout this whole thing.
I don't have an answer to all of this. If public messaging was more nuanced, I think it would help to clarify what "the science" is actually telling us. But then I'm sure we'd hear plenty of criticism that "the science" isn't clear so we shouldn't trust it at all.
It just sucks all around.
I always come back to the fact that this was and is still a novel virus with lots of unknowns. There is no reason to blame "science" or scientists\doctors for changing positions etc when they are learning about this virus in real time.
Here we are 15 months later and I think the experts probably know maybe 5% of what this virus does to the human body. We are going to spend millions if not billions of dollars on long haulers medical issues moving forward. [Reply]
I had some health stuff a couple of years ago, and the long-term outcome was frequent headaches. It's gotten better over time and it's easily managed, but it was pretty consistent and frequent headaches. By April of 2021 it was down to a couple of headaches a week on but it was consistently so.
I got the second covid shot and had a really strong immune reaction to it. It wiped me out for about 24 hours.
Since then...almost no headaches. I've had two very minor ones in four weeks.
Would a strong covid immune reaction kill some other type of infection or issue? I wouldn't think so, but the timing of suddenly having almost no issues after two years makes me wonder if something happened. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I have a medical question for you all.
I had some health stuff a couple of years ago, and the long-term outcome was frequent headaches. It's gotten better over time and it's easily managed, but it was pretty consistent and frequent headaches. By April of 2021 it was down to a couple of headaches a week on but it was consistently so.
I got the second covid shot and had a really strong immune reaction to it. It wiped me out for about 24 hours.
Since then...almost no headaches. I've had two very minor ones in four weeks.
Would a strong covid immune reaction kill some other type of infection or issue? I wouldn't think so, but the timing of suddenly having almost no issues after two years makes me wonder if something happened.
I'm no Doctor, but I'm pretty sure you are pregnant. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I have a medical question for you all.
I had some health stuff a couple of years ago, and the long-term outcome was frequent headaches. It's gotten better over time and it's easily managed, but it was pretty consistent and frequent headaches. By April of 2021 it was down to a couple of headaches a week on but it was consistently so.
I got the second covid shot and had a really strong immune reaction to it. It wiped me out for about 24 hours.
Since then...almost no headaches. I've had two very minor ones in four weeks.
Would a strong covid immune reaction kill some other type of infection or issue? I wouldn't think so, but the timing of suddenly having almost no issues after two years makes me wonder if something happened.
