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.”
It is, because he is going to “report” this and the general public will assume this was all spread in the school setting. Which will further lead to panic and problems and we’ll end up shutting them all down and won’t know what is and isn’t safe or how to manage
And we’ll be right back in the same spot as we are right now In january. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
I get that a PCR test will correctly identify what you are looking for but not exactly give you a time for when that positive identification mattered as it pertained to determining the spread of infection.
But beside the scientific limitations of coming up with something quicker, it doesn't seem to me that the public health apparatus has decided we need something quicker than PCR.
What? There's a large number of tests available that are quicker than the PCR test. They are quite widely used as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
Sounds like she was getting screened for MRSA. That's a nares swab and it's a pretty typical pre surgery test.
Entirely possible I mistook the letters MRSA with COVID on her paperwork and the directions to the one of many drive through COVID testing centers. I keep forgetting there are a bunch of drive through MRSA test sites throughout the county as well. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
I get that a PCR test will correctly identify what you are looking for but not exactly give you a time for when that positive identification mattered as it pertained to determining the spread of infection.
But beside the scientific limitations of coming up with something quicker, it doesn't seem to me that the public health apparatus has decided we need something quicker than PCR.
I personally tend to think some of the public health apparatus has been politicized so who knows.
Some of it is the fda approval and standards that have to be met to get a test thru [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
I get that a PCR test will correctly identify what you are looking for but not exactly give you a time for when that positive identification mattered as it pertained to determining the spread of infection.
But beside the scientific limitations of coming up with something quicker, it doesn't seem to me that the public health apparatus has decided we need something quicker than PCR.
Where do you get the idea they don't want faster testing because every single major public health person says the opposite. Everyone knows we need reliable, quick testing even at home so we can get back to some normalcy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
It is, because he is going to “report” this and the general public will assume this was all spread in the school setting. Which will further lead to panic and problems and we’ll end up shutting them all down and won’t know what is and isn’t safe or how to manage
And we’ll be right back in the same spot as we are right now In january.
I understand your point but the teacher stated he is just basing this mostly off media reporting anyway so people are going to assume some of that anyway don't you think? [Reply]
Our use of the PCR test as the backbone or our testing due to the public health officials belief it is the most accurate reminds me of what I read about the Germans during WWII.
Germany, as all countries, during the War, was tasked with keeping up armaments to sustain the fight. Whereas the US war production focused on quantity while sacrificing some quality, the Germans could not go against their DNA. :-) Instead Germans continued to focus on making bullets of the highest level of quality while producing a fraction of what the US was producing when the true need at the time was quantity. Seems like we are repeating the same mistake here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
Where do you get the idea they don't want faster testing because every single major public health person says the opposite. Everyone knows we need reliable, quick testing even at home so we can get back to some normalcy.
Well major public health experts have said there is no going back to normal and they're the first to point out most quick forms of testing aren't reliable.
So at the end of the day it's safe to say the experts don't believe we need quick testing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Well major public health experts have said there is no going back to normal and they're the first to point out most quick forms of testing aren't reliable.
So at the end of the day it's safe to say the experts don't believe we need quick testing.
Some of them aren't reliable though and there is a couple that have been approved that sound like they are. Alot of this is on the FDA because they want all the tests to be as accurate as the PCR test because they don't want a bunch of false negatives. They definitely got burned by their stupid antibody decision early on which they have rolled back. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
Some of them aren't reliable though and there is a couple that have been approved that sound like they are. Alot of this is on the FDA because they want all the tests to be as accurate as the PCR test because they don't want a bunch of false negatives. They definitely got burned by their stupid antibody decision early on which they have rolled back.
So the FDA responds by likely having far more false positives (in terms of actually infectious) then they would have likely had of the false negatives. Public health will always error on the side of caution. That is why they should have been a voice in the room rather than THE voice. Actions impacting all aspects of lives require multiple perspectives IMO. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kgrund:
So the FDA responds by likely having far more false positives (in terms of actually infectious) then they would have likely had of the false negatives. Public health will always error on the side of caution. That is why they should have been a voice in the room rather than THE voice. Actions impacting all aspects of lives require multiple perspectives IMO.
I heard more about false negatives for PCR testing than false positives. For the quick antigen tests false positives are supposedly rare while false negatives could be up to 50%. That is way to high false negative rate to be useful unless you are doing the test every day. The test the NBA is using just got approved and it has PCR like accuracy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
I heard more about false negatives for PCR testing than false positives. For the quick antigen tests false positives are supposedly rare while false negatives could be up to 50%. That is way to high false negative rate to be useful unless you are doing the test every day. The test the NBA is using just got approved and it has PCR like accuracy.
I agree that false negatives have been more widely covered with PCR because false positives are not as prevalent due to the hypersensitivity of the test. The issue that is becoming more clear is the limited insight from a positive result. Though it is not technically a "false positive", it essentially is in terms of what determining whether the individual is at risk to the community at the time of testing. [Reply]
