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.”
Premier League tentatively set to return in June. Sports!
BREAKING: The Premier League are at an advanced stage in talks with the Government over a return for football in June.
There is a tentative agreement for the top flight to resume behind closed doors after the 20 clubs mapped out a plan with officials.https://t.co/H3O645b9aG
Originally Posted by O.city:
Like New York hospitals were fine when it was peaking in Italy.
You’re using your own argument against yourself. It’s not likely to peak everywhere at the same time
The POINT was for hospitals to be pushed to their limit. Like I said - people stopped paying attention to 'the curve' once they posted it to their social media accounts. You don't want hospitals at 80% capacity at the peak here. You want them to take it right to 100%. That's how you get through this with the least amount avoidable harm.
Originally Posted by ghak99:
I'm having a really hard time following his math.
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
The POINT was for hospitals to be pushed to their limit. Like I said - people stopped paying attention to 'the curve' once they posted it to their social media accounts. You don't want hospitals at 80% capacity at the peak here. You want them to take it right to 100%. That's how you get through this with the least amount avoidable harm.
Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk:
Every projection model I have seen today has reduced their projected Cases/Deaths totals pretty dramatically...
They're weathermen putting their heads out the windows and telling you if it's raining.
There's not a single model that has proven useful throughout this. Remember the IMHE assumed successful social distancing and originally had NYC at greater than 70,000 hospitalized today.
They 'updated' their model yesterday and they're still off by 80%.
Again - these models haven't proven remotely useful or accurate at any step in this process. They have uncertainly levels so broad as to make them 'body sized' targets at best and even THEN they can't hit the target. They had 4 or 5 standard deviations between the top and bottom of their uncertainty curves and were STILL outside their margins.
They were trash. They provided NOTHING to the conversation.
Remember about 4 days ago when I punched numbers in excel and posted them on here with nothing more than a logarithmic best fit line and said "hey, the curve's already started to flatten a bit? and you can see it continuing to trend that direct?"
That was a GARBAGE attempt at any sort of useful statistical analysis and it was better than what we've gotten from the IMHE model. You could just punch those numbers in, map growth rates and see that we were turning a corner.
I just do not understand why we insist on pretending those things have added to the dialogue. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
They're weathermen putting their heads out the windows and telling you if it's raining.
There's not a single model that has proven useful throughout this. Remember the IMHE assumed successful social distancing and originally had NYC at greater than 70,000 hospitalized today.
They 'updated' their model yesterday and they're still off by 80%.
Again - these models haven't proven remotely useful or accurate at any step in this process. They have uncertainly levels so broad as to make them 'body sized' targets at best and even THEN they can't hit the target. They had 4 or 5 standard deviations between the top and bottom of their uncertainty curves and were STILL outside their margins.
They were trash. They provided NOTHING to the conversation.
Remember about 4 days ago when I punched numbers in excel and posted them on here with nothing more than a logarithmic best fit line and said "hey, the curve's already started to flatten a bit? and you can see it continuing to trend that direct?"
That was a GARBAGE attempt at any sort of useful statistical analysis and it was better than what we've gotten from the IMHE model. You could just punch those numbers in, map growth rates and see that we were turning a corner.
I just do not understand why we insist on pretending those things have added to the dialogue.
Models worked when you consider the fact they persuaded executive governments to shut down public activities. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
Doctors and medical expert don't mind being wrong and in certain cases prefer it , when the tumor comes back negative for cancer they are pretty happy they were wrong.
Works great for individual patients, not so much for a global economy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Why do we want them maxed out?
You asked 3 or 4 days ago why Missouri's 'peak' date was so far out - that's your answer.
If you sit there and hover at 80%, you'll be sitting there at 80% forever. You'll trade peak on the front for drag on the back. In the end your outcomes won't be any better (because you never had anyone the 80% scenario OR the 100% scenario who fell out of the pool for lack of capacity), but you'll have dragged it out unnecessarily.
Analogy time!!! What do you know about racing? Key to a fast lap is apexing your corners and being able to time your acceleration coming out of the backside of the turn. And to do that correctly, you need to time your deceleration nearly perfectly so that you dive into that corner and your lateral Gs will hold exactly as strong as needed at the apex of the curve. Then once you hit the apex you can mat the damn thing and come blasting out of the corner.
What coming well short of capacity is akin to is simply decelerating too much. Sure, you'll still make the turn, but you'll miss your apex point and you'll end up losing momentum and attack angle. You'll have never risked staying too tight and ending up sliding into the wall on the exit, but you'll also have lousy lap times.
It isn't important to just stay beneath the line - it's important to get as close to it as you can comfortably do so because that's how you achieve the best balance of outcomes and time.
There's even a comparison for going beyond capacity and 'passing under braking' as an extremely aggressive approach that will also yield worse outcomes but may be necessary if your prioritizing position over a stopwatch, but that's just too far in the weeds at that point. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo said that new hospitalizations, ICU admissions and daily intubations are all down for the state.
"Those are all good signs," the governor said."
He added that those numbers, "would suggest a possible flattening of the curve."
Here were the number of new hospitalizations in New York over the past three days that the governor reported today:
Friday, April 3: 1,095
Saturday, April 4: 574
Sunday, April 5: 358
Great news. I don't buy much into the healthcare organization taking the weekends off which are reflected in the lower numbers as well. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
Models worked when you consider the fact they persuaded executive governments to shut down public activities.
So we're cool with medical 'experts' telling white lies now?
And we're willing to deal with the very real possibility that, in so doing, they've actually defeated their stated purposes of flattening a curve (they've actually just created a flat line in many cases)? Because again - that doesn't win you anything, it simply delays the conflict.
Jesus - imagine applying this approach to anything in medicine or policy. This has NEVER been acceptable and now we're just gonna throw our hands up and say "well everyone sucked at what they were doing, but I guess the ends justify the means..."?