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 NewChief:
It's been painful for sure. That being said, I think it's a somewhat good test run for more lethal pandemics. I was listening to Sam Harris (who has been really strident in arguments for greater response and people not taking this seriously enough), and he had an epidemiologist on there. Sam was really concerned at this epidemiologist wasn't concerned horribly concerned about COVID-19. The epidemiologist explained that when he gets worried about pandemics, he's thinking of viruses with a 50%+ mortality rate (which are out there) mutating to become highly infectious and hard to contain.
So, to him, COVID was scary, but it wasn't scary in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take measure to combat it, and we definitely need to get our systems in place for when a "big one" comes. That, to me, all starts with MUCH better testing and detection capability. I still don't think we have actual good data on this thing due to our shitty testing capability (especially in states like Arkansas).
It makes you wonder, if this thing fizzles out pretty quick and in general it looks like an overreaction, how is that going to affect people's actions the next time a bug hits in 2 years? Obviously we SHOULD be better prepared for the next one. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I am sorry if my posts on a message board that have no impact on what happens somehow causes you distress. Its clear in your posting on this topic that unless you are all doom and gloom you don't agree with it. It's also clear you struggle with comprehension as I never stated anything about furthering anyone's career. You obviously have never dealt with people who's job is to be a subject matter expert on something that involves any level of risk and what their tendencies are.
The reality is there was a possible alternative reaction and outcome and its not settled nor will it likely ever be, which one is going to have the worst end result. Its not settled science.
I've posted plenty of articles that had good news in them in regards to this pandemic. So don't hit me with that 'doom and gloom' crap cause that's bullshit. I've been cautiously optimistic.
You want to come on here and harshly criticize our medical experts when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. So don't get upset when someone like myself calls you out on it. Again, acting like our medical experts wanted his to happen to further their career is one of the most asinine statements I've read in this thread. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Let's hope. The market seems to be trending the right way as we find out the pandemic isnt nearly as bad as feared.
Yup I haven't even looked at my portfolio since it started going down, I figured it would be akin to taking your temperature every few mins (sorry TLO not trying to single you out). so when I look at it next year I'm hoping it looks the same. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
Better safe than sorry is actually a very smart way of thinking when it comes to pandemics.
Could the global economic impact end up being less than predicted as well Economist are in the same world are Virologist when it comes to educated guessing .
Valid point. This may be the best response to that idea I have seen. I hope that's the case as well. :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Why Not?:
On that, I could agree(I sure hope that’s the case)the part I think is far fetched is getting everyone to Arizona to play everyday in the 112 degree heat on top of al the other logistic issues. Hopefully, we’re so far along by June things can start to resume as normal.
Getting any sport season going would be such a huge lift for the country. It will be an exciting day when it happens. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Getting any sport season going would be such a huge lift for the country. It will be an exciting day when it happens.
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
I've posted plenty of articles that had good news in them in regards to this pandemic. So don't hit me with that 'doom and gloom' crap cause that's bullshit. I've been cautiously optimistic.
You want to come on here and harshly criticize our medical experts when you clearly don't know what you are talking about. So don't get upset when someone like myself calls you out on it. Again, acting like our medical experts wanted his to happen to further their career is one of the most asinine statements I've read in this thread.
:-) are you insane? Stop responding to me moron. [Reply]
Again - this isn't over. It won't be over in June. It probably won't be 'over' until NEXT summer.
And we are NO closer to knowing what actually yielded the greatest benefits because we never gave anything time to breath and reviewed any specific decision for its outcomes. Would that have yielded a steeper curve a week ago? Today? Very possibly. But it would've given us useful information that we could then utilize to make smarter, more sustainable decisions over the coming months/year.
And I'm not saying that should've been done in NY, which was clearly a unique hotspot. But there's no reason not to have taken more measured approaches in California, Missouri, Florida, Texas, Colorado or even Louisiana. And try slightly different ones. LEARN something, don't just have everyone freaking out and doing the same things at the same times. These are things that needed to be empirically mapped and modeled so we can come up with a long-term plan.
What we failed to learn now will likely create problems for months. And the reason we failed to learn those things is we put trust in horrid models and then tried to justify that trust as 'an abundance of caution'.
I don't know enough about viruses and pandemics to comment. I will say this all hindsight you are posting our medical experts don't have that luxury. A lot of people could die based on their recommendations and they would have to live with that.
We have no idea how bad this could have gotten if less strict social distancing measures were not put into place. I don't know about you but it's better to be safe than sorry in that regard. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
It makes you wonder, if this thing fizzles out pretty quick and in general it looks like an overreaction, how is that going to affect people's actions the next time a bug hits in 2 years? Obviously we SHOULD be better prepared for the next one.
Why would it be considered an overreaction if it worked? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
MERS had a mortality rate of 35% , there are other factors to worry about when it comes to pandemics death rate is not the only part.
Right. Which is why I added "mutating to become highly infectious and hard to contain." And, of course, a ton of different variables can factor into what it means to be "highly infectious and hard to contain." [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Getting any sport season going would be such a huge lift for the country. It will be an exciting day when it happens.
Just imagine the ratings bonanza. Any sport that gets things up and running will have a ton of new viewers. I never watch NBA, but I would now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
It makes you wonder, if this thing fizzles out pretty quick and in general it looks like an overreaction, how is that going to affect people's actions the next time a bug hits in 2 years? Obviously we SHOULD be better prepared for the next one.
The fact is that we put mitigation efforts in place. We will never know "how bad" it would have been without them, because we didn't do that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NewChief:
Right. Which is why I added "mutating to become highly infectious and hard to contain." And, of course, a ton of different variables can factor into what it means to be "highly infectious and hard to contain."
It could have 0% mortality rate and 100% hospitalization rate and long term health issues as well and be cause for concern . [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
We have no idea how bad this could have gotten if less strict social distancing measures were not put into place. I don't know about you but it's better to be safe than sorry in that regard.
Yep. And people will use that as proof that what we put into place was an overreaction, even though they shouldn't. [Reply]
