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.”
JFC, it’s the American taxpayer making the vaccine free, not Pfizer. The USA had already bought 100 million doses. Rights to buy 500 million doses. Gave them $1.65 billion as payment. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigRedChief:
JFC, it’s the American taxpayer making the vaccine free, not Pfizer. The USA had already bought 100 million doses. Rights to buy 500 million doses. Gave them $1.65 billion as payment.
Pfizer hasn't gotten any money yet is my understanding. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
To be honest, 90%+ effectiveness on the first try for a vaccine that is completed in less than a year might be one of mankind's greatest achievements. (Unless something catastrophic happens and it falls apart)
Science rules.
Unfortunately it's already being politicized by some. Specifically the Gov. of New York. I won't go further but it's a damn shame that such good news instantly has to be titled one way or the other politically. [Reply]
While other pharmaceutical companies did take federal funds to develop a vaccine, Pfizer declined to do so, the only one of the major prospective developers to go it alone. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
To be honest, 90%+ effectiveness on the first try for a vaccine that is completed in less than a year might be one of mankind's greatest achievements. (Unless something catastrophic happens and it falls apart)
Science rules.
Haven't they been working on this since SARS? 2003? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Pfizer hasn't gotten any money yet is my understanding.
When the check is cut was not my point.
My point still stands. Pfizer isn't giving us shit for free. The taxpayer is paying them $40 a dose.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. to pay Pfizer, BioNTech $1.95 billion for COVID-19 vaccine
(Reuters) - The U.S. government will pay nearly $2 billion to buy enough of a COVID-19 vaccine being developed by Pfizer Inc PFE.N and German biotech BioNTech SE 22UAy.F to innoculate 50 million people if it proves to be safe and effective, the companies said on Wednesday.
The contract for 100 million doses of the vaccine amounts to a $39 price tag for what is likely to be a two-dose course of treatment.
The contract is the most the United States has agreed to spend on a vaccine, although previous deals with other vaccine makers were intended to also help pay for development costs.
Pfizer and BioNTech will not receive any money from the government unless their vaccine succeeds in large clinical trials and can be successfully manufactured, according to a Pfizer spokeswoman. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
To be honest, 90%+ effectiveness on the first try for a vaccine that is completed in less than a year might be one of mankind's greatest achievements. (Unless something catastrophic happens and it falls apart)
Science rules.
Back when we were hearing that 50 to 70 percent effectiveness was the minimum standard, I was thinking that I'm not sure 50 percent changes my way of life.
But then I realized something that I want to check with you all since you're the experts I hang out with the most. Let's go with the 90 percent number as an example.
If the vaccine is 90 percent effective, that doesn't just mean that my odds of getting the 'vid go down 90 percent. The 90 percent affects me, but also everyone in the chain that is bringing the 'vid to me. So in a world where everyone is vaccinated, then the person who would have given it to me is also 90 percent less likely to be carrying it because he/she gets the same benefit, and then it cascades further upstream in the same manner, lowering the odds by 90 percent at each step in transmission. So in essence, the vaccine cuts my odds by 90 percent if I'm exposed, but it also essentially cuts the virus' R0 score by 90 percent, which means that transmission is going to slow or stop - most likely dying out.
Now, if we go back to normal we'll have a lot more exposure, and there'll still be some knuckleheads who aren't vaccinated, most likely. So there could still be some paths to getting it. But even those paths would be getting squelched heavily because they'll be undercut by vaccinated people. The only high risk would be running into a person who's hanging out with a lot of unvaccinated people where the virus is maintaining a high transmission rate, and then they'll give you a 10 percent chance of getting it.
So in other words, a 90 percent vaccine means that we'll be french-kissing strippers with no realistic worry as long as the vaccine is widely distributed. And that's kind of true even at a 50 percent vaccine given that it knocks off half of the R0.
Is my R0 application correct? It might be even more than a linear impact, but I think it's a linear impact given the R0 is inherently exponential. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCUnited:
Reads like the government money is for the Pfizer delivered vaccine and not the development.
Correct. They were not a part of Operation Warp Speed. Accepted no money to help with research and development.
Monetarily, they took all the risk. But..... they are getting a $2 BILLION contract from the US government if they successfully deliver the vaccine. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Hispanic cases in JoCo are running at a 2.5-1 clip vs. Whites and around a 1.5-1 vs blacks.
Not sure what is going on in the community but they are taking it on the chin right now.
We saw that out here back in the spring. It's likely a combination of many Hispanic households tending to be larger (e.g., multi-generational, lots of kids, etc.) and the fact that they are generally very social as a community (e.g., lots of big family gatherings for key events, etc.).
I just don't think they can "shut it down" well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Back when we were hearing that 50 to 70 percent effectiveness was the minimum standard, I was thinking that I'm not sure 50 percent changes my way of life.
But then I realized something that I want to check with you all since you're the experts I hang out with the most. Let's go with the 90 percent number as an example.
If the vaccine is 90 percent effective, that doesn't just mean that my odds of getting the 'vid go down 90 percent. The 90 percent affects me, but also everyone in the chain that is bringing the 'vid to me. So in a world where everyone is vaccinated, then the person who would have given it to me is also 90 percent less likely to be carrying it because he/she gets the same benefit, and then it cascades further upstream in the same manner, lowering the odds by 90 percent at each step in transmission. So in essence, the vaccine cuts my odds by 90 percent if I'm exposed, but it also essentially cuts the virus' R0 score by 90 percent, which means that transmission is going to slow or stop - most likely dying out.
Now, if we go back to normal we'll have a lot more exposure, and there'll still be some knuckleheads who aren't vaccinated, most likely. So there could still be some paths to getting it. But even those paths would be getting squelched heavily because they'll be undercut by vaccinated people. The only high risk would be running into a person who's hanging out with a lot of unvaccinated people where the virus is maintaining a high transmission rate, and then they'll give you a 10 percent chance of getting it.
So in other words, a 90 percent vaccine means that we'll be french-kissing strippers with no realistic worry as long as the vaccine is widely distributed. And that's kind of true even at a 50 percent vaccine given that it knocks off half of the R0.
Is my R0 application correct? It might be even more than a linear impact, but I think it's a linear impact given the R0 is inherently exponential.
I don't think you need majority buy in to be honest. IF you could get say, half, it woudl essentially end this pandemic. [Reply]