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 DaFace:
I do think that, if we can get nursing homes and healthcare workers taken care of, we'll see death rates plummet. Add independently-living seniors, and things will start to look pretty good.
I still think you'll see SOME restrictions for a while, but they can definitely start loosening up in a couple months.
I think it also is dependent on how close the CDC is with their estimate of 1 in 8 cases going undiagnosed. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
It's going to just depend on where you live. I think locally by Feb shit will be in the process of returning to normal.
Worldwide. who the hell knows.
We are already wide open besides indoor concerts. All bars/restaurant are open, no restrictions. No mask mandate. Any business can open and operate indoors. Planning a huge Super Bowl week without restrictions. 70K fans in the stadium. Etc.etc. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Yeah, I would guess by March, we start seeing the impacts of the vaccines and natural immunity. Maybe February?
Master Fauci was out saying today that 50% of the country getting vaccinated is not enough. This is setting up for a huge political battle where some states could potentially hold the cloud of lock downs over everyone's head until they get vaccinated. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Master Fauci was out saying today that 50% of the country getting vaccinated is not enough. This is setting up for a huge political battle where some states could potentially hold the cloud of lock downs over everyone's head until they get vaccinated.
Not like that's anything new. They've said from the beginning that we'd need at least 60-70% for it to truly get it under control, though that includes people who are immune from having antibodies as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Not like that's anything new. They've said from the beginning that we'd need at least 60-70% for it to truly get it under control, though that includes people who are immune from having antibodies as well.
Fauci is saying 75%-80% need to be vaccinated. I don't have a problem with the vaccine but when half the country is reluctant, like I said, this is going to be the next political battle. [Reply]
As I think about this, we're vaccinating the most vulnerable first, but they're also the least likely to spread it. The restrictions will not (and should not) change until the vaccines are widely distributed among the people who are active.
I mentioned earlier in the thread that we could potentially see an uptick in death and cases before they plummet, on the theory that we'd start opening back up when a minority are vaccinated, and the 5 percent "non-effectiveness" in a mobile world would be a greater risk than what people face in the restrictions.
However, if it's all going to the assisted living places, the deaths should plummet quickly before the restrictions are lifted. So I think we'll see big declines in deaths, a slight uptick in cases as the restrictions rise, and then a big drop in cases as the vaccinations become more widespread. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
As I think about this, we're vaccinating the most vulnerable first, but they're also the least likely to spread it. The restrictions will not (and should not) change until the vaccines are widely distributed among the people who are active.
I mentioned earlier in the thread that we could potentially see an uptick in death and cases before they plummet, on the theory that we'd start opening back up when a minority are vaccinated, and the 5 percent "non-effectiveness" in a mobile world would be a greater risk than what people face in the restrictions.
However, if it's all going to the assisted living places, the deaths should plummet quickly before the restrictions are lifted. So I think we'll see big declines in deaths, a slight uptick in cases as the restrictions rise, and then a big drop in cases as the vaccinations become more widespread.
Well i suggest you start a GoFundMe for the people who can't pay their bills because of said restrictions. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
As I think about this, we're vaccinating the most vulnerable first, but they're also the least likely to spread it. The restrictions will not (and should not) change until the vaccines are widely distributed among the people who are active.
I mentioned earlier in the thread that we could potentially see an uptick in death and cases before they plummet, on the theory that we'd start opening back up when a minority are vaccinated, and the 5 percent "non-effectiveness" in a mobile world would be a greater risk than what people face in the restrictions.
However, if it's all going to the assisted living places, the deaths should plummet quickly before the restrictions are lifted. So I think we'll see big declines in deaths, a slight uptick in cases as the restrictions rise, and then a big drop in cases as the vaccinations become more widespread.
I highly doubt the behaviors of those who are refraining from doing anything "high risk" will change until they get themselves get vaccinated.
And even then this is also the type of person who is most likely to decide that "high risk" activities aren't worth it even with a vaccine, so.. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Fauci is saying 75%-80% need to be vaccinated. I don't have a problem with the vaccine but when half the country is reluctant, like I said, this is going to be the next political battle.
Despite strong evidence of its existence, in Fauci's world, T cell immunity does not exist. [Reply]
Originally Posted by kgrund:
Despite strong evidence of its existence, in Fauci's world, T cell immunity does not exist.
Yeah, this seems to be a rather myopic view by Fauci, imo. For the most part the high risk people are the ones that need to be vaccinated. Once the largest group of people who are dying are vaccinated then, yeah, this does start heading towards more of a flu type scenario. Why we need 80% of the people to be injected before we start feeling "safe"doesn't seem to be supported by anything we have seen thus far. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
I highly doubt the behaviors of those who are refraining from doing anything "high risk" will change until they get themselves get vaccinated.
And even then this is also the type of person who is most likely to decide that "high risk" activities aren't worth it even with a vaccine, so..
Actually, I'm saying that the people who get vaccinated will still have a 5 percent vulnerability if they go back to normal, which may be higher than their current vulnerability if they're staying home. So the vaccinated people may actually produce an uptick in cases.
As more people get vaccinated, that 5 percent will go down to a miniscule amount as the spread lowers, so it's really an early adopter problem. [Reply]