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 kgrund:
Two major stories came out last two days the CDC 6% everybody is focusing on and the NYT article discussing the major flaws in the PCR testing. Is it just me that thinks the NYT article about the PCR testing is the far more news worthy of the two?
Of course it is. But that sorta kills the doom & gloom narrative. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kgrund:
Two major stories came out last two days the CDC 6% everybody is focusing on and the NYT article discussing the major flaws in the PCR testing. Is it just me that thinks the NYT article about the PCR testing is the far more news worthy of the two?
Originally Posted by Donger:
Why do you think it's more news worthy?
The PCR test was never meant to be used as a public health tool. It's more diagnostic. There's a difference there that wasn't thought out or told very well to the public. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
Schools around here are going to shut down and go to full virtual in weeks.
Had an exposure last week in my son's class. They're spacing them out and doing all the right protocols so they only had to quarantine 6 kids from the class total and not shut everything down. Atleast not yet. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
The PCR test was never meant to be used as a public health tool. It's more diagnostic. There's a difference there that wasn't thought out or told very well to the public.
I'm not sure what you mean. The PCR test gives a "yes/no" regarding infection, as I understand it. It doesn't provide a determination of how contagious a person is (viral load).
Originally Posted by Donger:
I'm not sure what you mean. The PCR test gives a "yes/no" regarding infection, as I understand it. It doesn't provide a determination of how contagious a person is (viral load).
Is that correct?
Depending on what the actual cycle is set at, yes. But infection isn't necessarily a yes or no question apparently. I talked to an infectious disease buddy about this recently.
The PCR test given when symptomatic, yes will give you an answer on what genetic viral infection you have. The issue is that it's so sensitive it's gonna show viral "particles" for a while post infection so it doesn't do much to show whether you're past infeciton or just beginning. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
Schools around here are going to shut down and go to full virtual in weeks.
Have a daughter who is a junior in high school that is full virtual. On the computer from 9:00am to 3:00PM barring a 45 minute lunch break. After listening to multiple 90 minute lectures she has to do homework which consists of opening links, reading them and then typing notes. She does this until 10:00PM and sometimes as late as midnight before going to bed.
As parents we limited our kids "screen time" as they grew up because it was supposedly unhealthy....now she is doing screen time for "virtual school" only 12-15 hours a day. So healthy...... [Reply]
Originally Posted by jdubya:
Have a daughter who is a junior in high school that is full virtual. On the computer from 9:00am to 3:00PM barring a 45 minute lunch break. After listening to multiple 90 minute lectures she has to do homework which consists of opening links, reading them and then typing notes. She does this until 10:00PM and sometimes as late as midnight before going to bed.
As parents we limited our kids "screen time" as they grew up because it was supposedly unhealthy....now she is doing screen time for "virtual school" only 12-15 hours a day. So healthy......
That's a completely stupid and shitty way to do virtual. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jdubya:
Have a daughter who is a junior in high school that is full virtual. On the computer from 9:00am to 3:00PM barring a 45 minute lunch break. After listening to multiple 90 minute lectures she has to do homework which consists of opening links, reading them and then typing notes. She does this until 10:00PM and sometimes as late as midnight before going to bed.
As parents we limited our kids "screen time" as they grew up because it was supposedly unhealthy....now she is doing screen time for "virtual school" only 12-15 hours a day. So healthy......
Originally Posted by NewChief:
That's a completely stupid and shitty way to do virtual.
Wait until all these kids need glasses from staring at a screen all day long [Reply]
The issue with any test is that it cannot serve two masters. Tests are evaluated by their sensitivity and specificity.
The more sensitive you make a test, you make it less likely to miss someone (false negative), but you run the risk of identifying people as having a disease when they really don't (false positive). With testing sensitivity, you want to identify the true positives.
The more specific a test, the less likely you are to misidentify someone as having a disease when they don't (false positive), but if the test is too specific, you might miss people who have the disease (false negative).
It helps to think of them like a guard dog. An overly sensitive test will be like a dog that barks at every sound, no matter how minor. Will they identify an intruder this way? Yes, but they will also bark at a lot of things that aren't. An overly specific test will be like a dog that doesn't bark until they see someone with a gun in your bedroom. Will the dog not wake you up multiple times per night? Yes. But they also won't alarm you until it is too late. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Depending on what the actual cycle is set at, yes. But infection isn't necessarily a yes or no question apparently. I talked to an infectious disease buddy about this recently.
The PCR test given when symptomatic, yes will give you an answer on what genetic viral infection you have. The issue is that it's so sensitive it's gonna show viral "particles" for a while post infection so it doesn't do much to show whether you're past infeciton or just beginning.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
The issue with any test is that it cannot serve two masters. Tests are evaluated by their sensitivity and specificity.
The more sensitive you make a test, you make it less likely to miss someone (false negative), but you run the risk of identifying people as having a disease when they really don't (false positive). With testing sensitivity, you want to identify the true positives.
The more specific a test, the less likely you are to misidentify someone as having a disease when they don't (false positive), but if the test is too specific, you might miss people who have the disease (false negative).
It helps to think of them like a guard dog. An overly sensitive test will be like a dog that barks at every sound, no matter how minor. Will they identify an intruder this way? Yes, but they will also bark at a lot of things that aren't. An overly specific test will be like a dog that doesn't bark until they see someone with a gun in your bedroom. Will the dog not wake you up multiple times per night? Yes. But they also won't alarm you until it is too late.
This is the best plain english description of sensitivity and specificity I've heard. Thanks. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NewChief:
That's a completely stupid and shitty way to do virtual.
It`s not sustainable thats for sure. The teachers know it as well but this is all new to them. My daughter is an A student but she wont be able to keep up this pace much longer. She used to run for an hour a day but she hasnt left the house in 2 weeks because she has too much work to do. Saturdays and Sundays are at least 8 hour days for homework.
PETE: My daughter has been prone to occasional migraines and now uses those "blue light" glasses when on the computer but I dont know if that makes a difference long term as far as vision. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
The issue with any test is that it cannot serve two masters. Tests are evaluated by their sensitivity and specificity.
The more sensitive you make a test, you make it less likely to miss someone (false negative), but you run the risk of identifying people as having a disease when they really don't (false positive). With testing sensitivity, you want to identify the true positives.
The more specific a test, the less likely you are to misidentify someone as having a disease when they don't (false positive), but if the test is too specific, you might miss people who have the disease (false negative).
It helps to think of them like a guard dog. An overly sensitive test will be like a dog that barks at every sound, no matter how minor. Will they identify an intruder this way? Yes, but they will also bark at a lot of things that aren't. An overly specific test will be like a dog that doesn't bark until they see someone with a gun in your bedroom. Will the dog not wake you up multiple times per night? Yes. But they also won't alarm you until it is too late.
Yep.
I think we got it all wrong with using the PCR test to find asymptomatic spread or potential of in that it will throw alot of "positives" that aren't really positives. It just wasn't really designed as a true public health tool.
Plus with this whole thing, the biggest issue we're having is time or lack there of. We need to identify those who are actually transmitting or shedding virus, not really those who have slight positives. [Reply]