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:
Do not have a side on the HQ debate, but one thing that does not help end the debate is the "point-in-time" that the drug is given and tested. The largest supporters of using the drug indicates it must be given early at a fairly large dose. However when tested, it seems the overwhelming amount of tests are done once the virus has significantly progressed. It seems like the possibility could still exist that both sides are correct due primarily to the point in time in which the therapy starts. It seems like a bit of apples and oranges is going on IMO.
If the drug had no risks that would be fine but giving a potentially dangerous drug that has benefit to someone who might recover without is borderline malpractice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
If Vlad would ya e posted his data on CNN and Democratic would have touted its benefits Hamas would have destroyed the trial equally
I wasn't specifically talking about Vlad but speaking of him, I would be interested in finding some comments from his patients.
Either way, there are multiple clinical trials happening now. I guess we will see whether or not it is effective. I guess all I can say is that I'm not 100% convinced that it will work but nothing I have seen so far has deterred my interest in it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
There you go, pete. You're getting there.
I know you're trying to worm your way around this from saying it protected the wearer to "I didn't say that I said.." just like you always do in DC. You never said what you said. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ‘ Hamas' Jenkins:
In no way is that answering like a politician. That's pretty damned clear.
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
That’s not really simple because you’re not giving a timeline needed for research on all of the stats you’re looking for. All of those numbers will be completely provisional for the next few years. When will you be confident enough in those research numbers? Are you saying you’d feel safe if those numbers lined up today to take a vaccine?
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
The studies will have a follow up period. In the case of a dose of an inactivated virus, I'm not terribly concerned. Were it attenuated, a short follow-up would be sufficient as long as cGMP were followed in its production.
It's not a chronic medication and vaccines are remarkably safe for inactivated viruses. Assuming there is nothing novel in its synthesis, the RCT data will give you sufficient info.
Never once did you answer the question here. If this isn’t answering like a politician I don’t know what is. Nice of you to leave that part of the conversation out of your example though. It’s not really helping prove your point that you’re withholding some of the information that doesn’t help your case [Reply]
Originally Posted by kgrund:
Do not have a side on the HQ debate, but one thing that does not help end the debate is the "point-in-time" that the drug is given and tested. The largest supporters of using the drug indicates it must be given early at a fairly large dose. However when tested, it seems the overwhelming amount of tests are done once the virus has significantly progressed. It seems like the possibility could still exist that both sides are correct due primarily to the point in time in which the therapy starts. It seems like a bit of apples and oranges is going on IMO.
There is no data to support giving it early at this point. When dealing with evidence-based medicine, you need evidence. Given that no trials have come forth establishing a protective mechanism for hydroxychloroquine either to prevent infection or early in infection, saying that it needs to be given early is just conjecture, especially when you lack a control group to compare it against.
Antivirals in general will help more when started sooner than later (Tamiflu being a great example), but it doesn't mean that the help drops to zero once you have a moderate infection. [Reply]
Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED:
Never once did you answer the question here. If this isn’t answering like a politician I don’t know what is. Nice of you to leave that part of the conversation out of your example though. It’s not really helping prove your point that you’re withholding all of the information.
"It's not a chronic medication and vaccines are remarkably safe for inactivated viruses. Assuming there is nothing novel in its synthesis, the RCT data will give you sufficient info."
At this point I'm just going to assume that you're a troll, because it's clear that you aren't even attempting to read what I'm posting. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
I know you're trying to worm your way around this from saying it protected the wearer to "I didn't say that I said.." just like you always do in DC. You never said what you said.
Tell me, pete: if masks can stop doplet spread in one direction, what makes you think they can't or don't in the other? [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Why might it be important to conduct a study with proper, established methodology?
Again, what bad studies have I promoted?
It was earlier in this thread and you even made a comment something about the virus's advanced progress on the patients. I don't remember exactly and I'm not about to go search for it but those were my takeaways.
But hey, if you're gonna proclaim yourself the smart one amongst stupid people like us then you are going to take some heat from time to time. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kgrund:
Do not have a side on the HQ debate, but one thing that does not help end the debate is the "point-in-time" that the drug is given and tested. The largest supporters of using the drug indicates it must be given early at a fairly large dose. However when tested, it seems the overwhelming amount of tests are done once the virus has significantly progressed. It seems like the possibility could still exist that both sides are correct due primarily to the point in time in which the therapy starts. It seems like a bit of apples and oranges is going on IMO.
There was a study that came out today where HCQ was given early on and it had no effect.
Originally Posted by :
A study of 96,000 hospitalized coronavirus patients on six continents found that those who received an antimalarial drug had a significantly higher risk of death compared with those who did not.
People treated with hydroxychloroquine, or the closely related drug chloroquine, were also more likely to develop a type of irregular heart rhythm, or arrhythmia, that can lead to sudden cardiac death, it concluded.
The study, published Friday in the medical journal the Lancet, is the largest analysis to date of the risks and benefits of treating covid-19 patients with antimalarial drugs. It is based on a retrospective analysis of medical records, not a controlled study in which patients are divided randomly into treatment groups — a method considered the gold standard of medicine.
But the sheer size of the study was convincing to some scientists.
“It’s one thing not to have benefit, but this shows distinct harm,” said Eric Topol, a cardiologist and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “If there was ever hope for this drug, this is the death of it.”
David Maron, director of preventive cardiology at the Stanford University School of Medicine, said that “these findings provide absolutely no reason for optimism that these drugs might be useful in the prevention or treatment of covid-19.”
Originally Posted by Donger:
Tell me, pete: if masks can stop doplet spread in one direction, what makes you think they can't or don't in the other?
Tell me, Donger, if you know so ****ing much why aren't you the expert publishing what you think you know?
Perhaps you need to call the CDC and tell them you got it all figured out?
So bottom line, why don't you quit pretending this is me just saying this shit? Why don't you, Dr. Donger, call all these medical experts who spent decades being educated and working in the field and tell them they just don't get it?
And never mind the fact I posted the answer to your question already. You just choose to ignore it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
If the drug had no risks that would be fine but giving a potentially dangerous drug that has benefit to someone who might recover without is borderline malpractice.
Ok, now this is a legitimate argument. But I would like to know what the doctors that proclaim its benefits would have to say about that.
And I would also like to know what do you guys think these people have to benefit from promoting this drug that is cheap? What do the people that are discounting this drug have to benefit from doing that? [Reply]
It’s been “just wait 2 weeks” for 8. Now it’s because of the heat (straight from Mecca’s post). How the fuck is that not moving goalposts?
Just so we're clear: you don't claim to know anything, but you're mocking the lack of increased cases in Florida while cases cases and hospitalizations have increased. You don't see the irony here? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
If the drug had no risks that would be fine but giving a potentially dangerous drug that has benefit to someone who might recover without is borderline malpractice.
Have heard opinions from experts ranging from "it is going to kill you" to "risk of use is highly overblown". Expert opinions on the risk of use has varied a ton. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Tell me, Donger, if you know so ****ing much why aren't you the expert publishing what you think you know?
Perhaps you need to call the CDC and tell them you got it all figured out?
So bottom line, why don't you quit pretending this is me just saying this shit? Why don't you, Dr. Donger, call all these medical experts who spent decades being educated and working in the field and tell them they just don't get it?
The CDC doesn't say that masks don't stop droplet spread, pete. It's just common sense that if masks can prevent droplet spread in one direction, it will in the other. Do you dispute that?
Now, does wearing a nose and mouth mask prevent a droplet from getting in your eyes? No, of course not. The article you kindly posted mentions that. [Reply]
