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:
I do find this presentation to be much more meaningful (via /u/DarrenLu/ on reddit). I'll note, however, that the poster uses red for both hospitalizations (on top) and breakthrough infections in general (on bottom), which is a little confusing.
So knowing this, and showing that 99% of the population does not get hospitalized if you are unvaccinated... WHY are they planning to force this? [Reply]
Originally Posted by carlos3652:
So knowing this, and showing that 99% of the population does not get hospitalized if you are unvaccinated... WHY are they planning to force this?
Because people want to go back to normal. But unfortunately ICUs are filling up all over the midwest and south, so that's not possible right now.
Also kids can't get vaccinated yet. So even if the risk is small, vaccinated parents are frustrated that anti-vaxxers are out there endangering their kids. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
Because we want to go back to normal. But unfortunately ICUs are filling up all over the midwest and south, so that's not possible right now.
So 1% of the population is filling up ICU's to the point that we cant function as a society?
And it should no longer be 1% because more than 1/2 the population has been vaccinated.
From my understanding, only 20-30% of the ICU's are covid related... what about all the other issues?
Info does not compute.
Again, the Vax works and is efficient, but forcing people is wrong. [Reply]
When ICUs fill up it pushes out other elective surgery which can have real consequences. It also traumatizes front line health care workers, some of whom can't take it anymore and are quitting or moving into other disciplines.
And believe it or not, it hurts some of us still when a vaxx-hesitant father of four dies because he's been taken in by youtube videos. And then the wife regrets ever getting vaccine advice from Facebook. And the whole thing is just sad.
Do you want me to keep posting those? Because they still come fast and furious. I just stopped posting them because I was told they are redundant.
Also you ignored the whole part about anti-vaxxers endangering kids under 12 who can't get vaccinated yet. Would you like me to keep posting kids who die from this? Because again I was told those are redundant. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
When ICUs fill up it pushes out other elective surgery which can have real consequences. It also traumatizes front line health care workers, some of whom can't take it anymore and are quitting or moving into other disciplines.
And believe it or not, it hurts some of us still when a vaxx-hesitant father of four dies because he's been taken in by youtube videos. And then the wife regrets ever getting vaccine advice from Facebook. And the whole thing is just sad.
Do you want me to keep posting those? Because they still come fast and furious. I just stopped posting them because I was told they are redundant.
Also you ignored the whole part about anti-vaxxers endangering kids under 12 who can't get vaccinated yet. Would you like me to keep posting kids who die from this? Because again I was told those are redundant.
Not going to argue. No point.
My family is 90% vaxxed. My child had RSV 2 weeks ago. That shit is going around. Children Mercy South had 0 of their RSV kids test positive from Covid as of 2 weeks ago when we got tested (per our nurse). Tons of kids getting hospitalized for RSV which is just as scary.
So you are blaming the 5.3 billion people in the world causing these variants? because none of the 90 million people left who are eligible in the US caused any of these... (Delta, Lambda, Gamma, etc)
You are seeing tons of kids under the age of 12 dying from Covid? Haven't seen those figures, would be interesting to see them. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I do find this presentation to be much more meaningful (via /u/DarrenLu/ on reddit). I'll note, however, that the poster uses red for both hospitalizations (on top) and breakthrough infections in general (on bottom), which is a little confusing.
This doesn't compute. It shows that for every 102k unvaccinated there are 417 deaths. This means that ~.4% of everyone that is unvaccinated will die. Currently about half the country is fully vaccinated leaving around 166 million people unvaccinated. If .4% of all unvaccinated are dying from this, that would be over 1.3M deaths which is over double the actual deaths from the beginning of the pandemic, most of those being when a vaccine wasn't available. What am I missing? [Reply]
Originally Posted by carlos3652:
So 1% of the population is filling up ICU's to the point that we cant function as a society?
And it should no longer be 1% because more than 1/2 the population has been vaccinated.
From my understanding, only 20-30% of the ICU's are covid related... what about all the other issues?
Info does not compute.
Again, the Vax works and is efficient, but forcing people is wrong.
Yes, that 1% makes a huge difference. Remember, ICUs are not large, so just a small influx of patients can overrun one. I'd say they range anywhere from 5 to 40 beds. When you hear that "ICUs are full", that doesn't mean everyone in town is sick, it means the ICU reached that smallish capacity.
The thing is that the ICUs are designed to always be somewhat near capacity (because it's incredibly expensive to have beds sitting empty). The forecasts for capacity were based on pre-covid days, so this is throwing a wrench into all of that forecasting. Previously, they'd just send overflow to the next nearest hospital, but they cant do that anymore because those ICUs are full too.
Now, the problem is where to put car crash victims or gunshot victims when the ICU is full of insulin-resistant fatties that could have taken a shot to stay out of that ICU.
In general, the problem doesn't effect a huge number of people, but when it's your turn and you accidentally chop your arm off with a band saw, you'll really be wishing those people took their shots. [Reply]
In general, the problem doesn't effect a huge number of people, but when it's your turn and you accidentally chop your arm off with a band saw, you'll really be wishing those people took their shots.
100%. I can get behind this rationale. We need to better equip our hospitals, especially during seasonality spikes. [Reply]
Months ago, the CDC admitted there was “likely a substantial undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons.” But instead of trying to determine the real number, they announced they were going to stop counting cases among the vaccinated unless they were hospitalized or died.
If the CDC knew that there was a serious underestimate of the real numbers, and now they’ve stopped counting and have no idea how many vaccinated people are infected, how can they say that it’s the unvaccinated who are spreading disease? [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Months ago, the CDC admitted there was “likely a substantial undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons.” This was because they didn’t include those who only had one shot or count those who had their second shot 5-10 days earlier. But instead of trying to determine the real number, they announced they were going to stop counting cases among the vaccinated unless they were hospitalized or died.
If the CDC knew that there was a serious underestimate of the real numbers, and now they’ve stopped counting and have no idea how many vaccinated people are infected, how can they say that it’s the unvaccinated who are spreading disease?
Originally Posted by carlos3652:
100%. I can get behind this rationale. We need to better equip our hospitals, especially during seasonality spikes.
COVID isn't seasonal and RSV isn't new either my son was hospitalized with it 16 years ago almost need intubation we a just seeing more cases now because we stopped wearing masks and social distancing. [Reply]
