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.”
The data is close enough not to fret over which manufacturer a person goes with at this point between Moderna and Pfizer so which ever one they have available with they are giving at my work place then that's what I'll go with.
I'll come back with a report when the time comes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I'm with you provided that we eventually have the option for either of those before J&J is available. If someone said "you're up tomorrow, but only if you get J&J," I'd do it without blinking.
I'm actually not sure I would. I live in deep seclusion right now so if my choice was a 66 percent vaccine now or a 95 percent vaccine in three months, I might wait the three months. I think my odds of getting covid in three months is less than 29 percent (simple math on the difference, probably not accurate, but you get the drift).
But part of my decision is a question that I don't think can be answered right now. If the efficacy is one dice roll and I'm either covered or I'm not, then maybe I'd consider the 66 percent, though I'd still probably wait. But if it's a dice roll every time I'm exposed I'd definitely wait for the 95 percent. [Reply]
I have thought very long and hard about the best mitigation strategies for the Covid-19 pandemic over the last week ... and reached the conclusion this really is a 'wicked problem'. I believe anyone who believes there are simple fixes didn't think hard enough about it (1/4)
— Prof Francois Balloux (@BallouxFrancois) March 12, 2020
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I'm actually not sure I would. I live in deep seclusion right now so if my choice was a 66 percent vaccine now or a 95 percent vaccine in three months, I might wait the three months. I think my odds of getting covid in three months is less than 29 percent (simple math on the difference, probably not accurate, but you get the drift).
It said it reduced severe disease cases by 85%. If severe disease=hospitilization cases, I'd take it. I wouldn't if I was 70 but for me right now, yeah.
Merck shitcanned two vacc's in development. Most regrettably was the pill based vacc failing phase 1. [Reply]
Originally Posted by ChiliConCarnage:
It said it reduced severe disease cases by 85%. If severe disease=hospitilization cases, I'd take it. I wouldn't if I was 70 but for me right now, yeah.
Merck shitcanned two vacc's in development. Most regrettably was the pill based vacc failing phase 1.
Yeah, that's a good point. If it still lets you get it at a higher rate, but it's a mild case, maybe the vaccine plus the natural antibodies makes it as good as the high-efficacy vaccines. I'll still hope that I get the Moderna or Pfizer ones, though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I'm with you provided that we eventually have the option for either of those before J&J is available. If someone said "you're up tomorrow, but only if you get J&J," I'd do it without blinking.
Id also bet that jnj will be prioritized for specific areas. The big advantage is serving areas that lack cold storage infrastructure. The single shot and way cheaper production could be a cheap way to get the vaccine out to poorer communities, many of whom may be more thrilled with one shot vs 2. Also may be great for rural communities which have less danger of spread but also lack cold storage infrastructure.
You'd have to think denser areas with delivery infrastructure would be prioritized for Moderna or Pfizer. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
Id also bet that jnj will be prioritized for specific areas. The big advantage is serving areas that lack cold storage infrastructure. The single shot and way cheaper production could be a cheap way to get the vaccine out to poorer communities, many of whom may be more thrilled with one shot vs 2. Also may be great for rural communities which have less danger of spread but also lack cold storage infrastructure.
You'd have to think denser areas with delivery infrastructure would be prioritized for Moderna or Pfizer.
Yeah, that would make sense. I have a hunch that Pfizer and Moderna will be more common in the USA and Europe, and J&J will go to large populations outside those areas that have less strong infrastructure. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
I’m supposed to go to Scotland in July for a golf trip. Anyone think that’s happening ?
I think there's a chance. The UK is on the fastest vaccination pace in Europe, and we're moving along here. If I had to guess I'd say 60% chance it'll work out.
I certainly would wait to cancel assuming your tickets can still be refunded later. [Reply]
Im travelling to America in November. Couple of questions if anyone can help.
1. I will need a PCR test before flying home, how much generally are they and are they widely available?
2. I will be flying internally to a few states, will i need a PCR test for each internal flight? [Reply]
Originally Posted by IrishChief:
Im travelling to America in November. Couple of questions if anyone can help.
1. I will need a PCR test before flying home, how much generally are they and are they widely available?
2. I will be flying internally to a few states, will i need a PCR test for each internal flight?
As far as I know, we don't have any shortages of PCR tests at this point. I can go get one from my healthcare provider just about any time. However, I'd imagine you'd have to pay out of pocket for it, so plan on it costing you a little. I'd definitely research HCPs wherever you'll be a few days before the return trip and give them a call to ask about it.
As for travel around the U.S., you won't ever need one to get on a plane, but some states do technically want you to either have a test or quarantine when you get there. Frankly, I think it's unlikely that you would be caught regardless, but it's another one you'll probably want to research.
All that said, I really hope we'll basically be done with this long before November. [Reply]
A COVID-19 outbreak among bus drivers and transportation staff has forced Bloomington Public Schools to abruptly move elementary students back to distance learning, less than two weeks after schools reopened for in-person instruction.
The district was one of many in Minnesota that began reopening elementary schools this month following a change in state guidelines. Now, it's the first in the metro area to reverse course because of widespread virus activity. The move comes as other large districts, including Minneapolis and St. Paul, are preparing to bring students back to classrooms and fielding significant safety concerns from teachers and their unions. [Reply]
Interesting way to look at j&j give it more for 30 and under?
@jazayerli: Boom. This was the news I was hoping for. It may not seem as effective as Pfizer or Moderna, but it's 1 shot vs. 2, and hospitalization/death from Covid appears almost completely eliminated.
@jazayerli: That is my thinking, that we prioritize the J&J vaccine for lower-risk patients, or frankly, anyone who is scared of vaccines and is unlikely to follow up for a second shot. Keep using the Pfizer/Moderna shot on people over 40 and high-risk folks. Mortality should drop fast. https://twitter.com/Mayday814/status...74650460991490 [Reply]