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 KS Smitty:
It was mentioned at the beginning of the pandemic that the MMR vaccine may provide some protection from Covid-19 and could be the reason that children don't get sick/as sick as older people. The scientists think it's the mumps part that is doing this and have been studying it.
From the link: "This is the first immunological study to evaluate the relationship between the MMR II vaccine and COVID-19. The statistically significant inverse correlation between mumps titers and COVID-19 indicates that there is a relationship involved that warrants further investigation,"
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
It seems like it would be hard to evaluate that since most everyone has had MMR. Other than a few crazy people, isn't it pretty much universal?
Well, at least in the USA. I guess I don't know about other countries.
It is.
Side note: Mumps outbreaks have become increasingly common in the US due to anti-vaxxers and it has caused spillover into the general population, with mumps outbreaks occurring with some regularity on college campuses. [Reply]
Side note: Mumps outbreaks have become increasingly common in the US due to anti-vaxxers and it has caused spillover into the general population, with mumps outbreaks occurring with some regularity on college campuses.
Aren't the vaccinated individuals protected form those outbreaks? Am I misunderstanding the way vaccines work? [Reply]
Side note: Mumps outbreaks have become increasingly common in the US due to anti-vaxxers and it has caused spillover into the general population, with mumps outbreaks occurring with some regularity on college campuses.
I thought the same as Rainman. I saw an anecdotal post that sent me looking for an actual paper and that's what I found.
This is the comment that sent me searching for more info:
The MMR vaccine (and specifically the mumps part of the vaccine) seems to be protective against COVID-19. In a recent study, those with the MMR II vaccine (developed by Merck in 1979) fared much better compared to those without the MMRII vaccine (e.g., naturally acquired antibodies, or the old vaccine). This may explain the mystery behind why kids are doing surprisingly well during the pandemic. This theory was introduced in March 2020 after scientists noticed that recent, large-scale MMR vaccination campaigns were associated with countries with the fewest COVID-19 deaths. Randomized control trials are being conducted now to test this preliminary finding more in depth. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KS Smitty:
I thought the same as Rainman. I saw an anecdotal post that sent me looking for an actual paper and that's what I found.
This is the comment that sent me searching for more info:
The MMR vaccine (and specifically the mumps part of the vaccine) seems to be protective against COVID-19. In a recent study, those with the MMR II vaccine (developed by Merck in 1979) fared much better compared to those without the MMRII vaccine (e.g., naturally acquired antibodies, or the old vaccine). This may explain the mystery behind why kids are doing surprisingly well during the pandemic. This theory was introduced in March 2020 after scientists noticed that recent, large-scale MMR vaccination campaigns were associated with countries with the fewest COVID-19 deaths. Randomized control trials are being conducted now to test this preliminary finding more in depth.
Interesting. I'll be interested to see what they find. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
Aren't the vaccinated individuals protected form those outbreaks? Am I misunderstanding the way vaccines work?
It's a bit complicated. Here's the best explanation I can offer:
If everyone gets a vaccine that is highly efficacious and protection is long-lasting, then the disease has no reservoir and it dies out. This is what happened to smallpox, even though it wasn't 100% effective.
However, let's say that there isn't universal vaccination. The disease has a small reservoir of potential people to infect and it dies out, right? Well, not always, because the antivaxxers are constantly replenishing the pool of the unvaccinated, and with each person it infects, the odds of a mutation that renders the vaccine less effective for the inoculated population increases, and vaccine efficacy can wane over time, which is why we have boosters for certain vaccines like TDaP.
One MMR vaccine is a little under 80% effective in protecting against mumps, two a little under 90%. This would normally be more than enough to protect, but if you have a pool of people that won't get the vaccine, that is enough to cause these small outbreaks amongst the vaccinated-but-still-vulnerable population.
This is why to stamp out COVID we will need near universal vaccination rates. As long as there isn't a mutation in the spike protein the underlying mechanism behind the vaccine should be fairly durable (I'm a bit out over my skis on this one), but boosters will likely be offered and become relatively commonplace, although I'm unsure of their frequency. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
It's a bit complicated. Here's the best explanation I can offer:
If everyone gets a vaccine that is highly efficacious and protection is long-lasting, then the disease has no reservoir and it dies out. This is what happened to smallpox, even though it wasn't 100% effective.
However, let's say that there isn't universal vaccination. The disease has a small reservoir of potential people to infect and it dies out, right? Well, not always, because the antivaxxers are constantly replenishing the pool of the unvaccinated, and with each person it infects, the odds of a mutation that renders the vaccine less effective for the inoculated population increases, and vaccine efficacy can wane over time, which is why we have boosters for certain vaccines like TDaP.
One MMR vaccine is a little under 80% effective in protecting against mumps, two a little under 90%. This would normally be more than enough to protect, but if you have a pool of people that won't get the vaccine, that is enough to cause these small outbreaks amongst the vaccinated-but-still-vulnerable population.
This is why to stamp out COVID we will need near universal vaccination rates. As long as there isn't a mutation in the spike protein the underlying mechanism behind the vaccine should be fairly durable (I'm a bit out over my skis on this one), but boosters will likely be offered and become relatively commonplace, although I'm unsure of their frequency.
I have so many questions about the vaccine distribution process, and am finding so few answers. I know they're talking about shipping out to locations within 24 hours of EUA being granted. Does that mean it's going to be available at my local Walgreens on December 11th to be administered?
The pharmacy we as a provider use (Genoa) has said they will likely be getting the vaccine, but the gentleman I spoke to today said he wasn't sure. Then I'm curious about the verification process to start getting it into healthcare workers arms, etc. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
I have so many questions about the vaccine distribution process, and am finding so few answers. I know they're talking about shipping out to locations within 24 hours of EUA being granted. Does that mean it's going to be available at my local Walgreens on December 11th to be administered?
The pharmacy we as a provider use (Genoa) has said they will likely be getting the vaccine, but the gentleman I spoke to today said he wasn't sure. Then I'm curious about the verification process to start getting it into healthcare workers arms, etc.
"Missouri plans to collaborate with healthcare systems, pharmacies, and community partners to vaccinate long-term care facility staff and other healthcare workers. If the need arises to break this group further down, Missouri plans to start with healthcare staff at long-term care facilities.2 Again, if vaccine supply forces prioritization, the next step is healthcare workers who self-identify recognized CDC established comorbidities for COVID-19, starting with inpatient healthcare workers expanding out to outpatient healthcare workers. These vaccinations will take place in closed
Points of Dispensing (PODS). NOTE: This is still all occurring in Phase 1A."
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
"Missouri plans to collaborate with healthcare systems, pharmacies, and community partners to vaccinate long-term care facility staff and other healthcare workers. If the need arises to break this group further down, Missouri plans to start with healthcare staff at long-term care facilities.2 Again, if vaccine supply forces prioritization, the next step is healthcare workers who self-identify recognized CDC established comorbidities for COVID-19, starting with inpatient healthcare workers expanding out to outpatient healthcare workers. These vaccinations will take place in closed
Points of Dispensing (PODS). NOTE: This is still all occurring in Phase 1A."
I'm assuming (dumb on my part I know) that front line workers have been tested the most and are the most likely to have tested positive given their line of work. Given what we seem to know about antibodies and immunity, is the plan to prioritize front line workers based on known positives or just say fuck it and vaccinate all of them to be on the safe side?
I'm good with whatever, just curious as to the distribution strategy as it applies to people who've tested positive at some point. [Reply]
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is considering shortening the current coronavirus quarantine timeline from 14 days to between just seven and 10, according to an exclusive Wall Street Journal report. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCUnited:
I'm assuming (dumb on my part I know) that front line workers have been tested the most and are the most likely to have tested positive given their line of work. Given what we seem to know about antibodies and immunity, is the plan to prioritize front line workers based on known positives or just say **** it and vaccinate all of them to be on the safe side?
I'm good with whatever, just curious as to the distribution strategy as it applies to people who've tested positive at some point.
Those that have tested positive are still encouraged to be vaccinated per the CDC [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCUnited:
I'm assuming (dumb on my part I know) that front line workers have been tested the most and are the most likely to have tested positive given their line of work. Given what we seem to know about antibodies and immunity, is the plan to prioritize front line workers based on known positives or just say fuck it and vaccinate all of them to be on the safe side?
I'm good with whatever, just curious as to the distribution strategy as it applies to people who've tested positive at some point.
They likely will not fractionate the population that much unless there ends up being serious issues with distribution and stability, plus we don't yet know enough about long-term immunity to make assumptions about its duration.
My educated guess is that there is a grace period by which individuals must be vaccinated. This will be mandatory to work in healthcare. For example, just to not get kicked out of school I had to provide proof of a flu vaccine by October 31st of every year, and even though I had documented proof of my MMR history, they still required a titer to establish that I had sufficient immunity. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
Those that have tested positive are still encouraged to be vaccinated per the CDC
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
They likely will not fractionate the population that much unless there ends up being serious issues with distribution and stability, plus we don't yet know enough about long-term immunity to make assumptions about its duration.
My educated guess is that there is a grace period by which individuals must be vaccinated. This will be mandatory to work in healthcare. For example, just to not get kicked out of school I had to provide proof of a flu vaccine by October 31st of every year, and even though I had documented proof of my MMR history, they still required a titer to establish that I had sufficient immunity.
