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 'Hamas' Jenkins:
What were they supposed to do with the information presented to them? China locked down an entire province. SK implemented extreme measures to isolate and trace contacts. Other EU countries went into lockdown before the US.
If you're a public health official presented with with that information, knowing that you have a respiratory virus that is both highly contagious and virulent, installing half measures opens you up to the worst of both outcomes--massive death and economic calamity.
This was always going to end up getting Monday Morning QB'd. If the death toll ended up being lower than anticipated, people would complain that too much damage was done to the economy. If the death toll ended up higher, people would complain that not enough was done.
Rather than complaining, perhaps we should be happy if the death toll is lower because it means that the solution to the problem resulted in far less death and stress to the health care system than we could have anticipated. It isn't common, but sometimes therapies are *more* effective than you would have estimated.
And if that is the case, it allows you to implement an easing of restrictions at a greater rate, which I think we all believe would be a good thing.
I'm complaining because it was lazy and ineffective decision-making that was obvious in real-time.
This idea that "well nobody could've expected them to be off by that much" is folly. Yes, that could absolutely have been predicted and WAS. Moreover, instead of doubling down on their decisions based on 'evidence' that was proven faulty in real time, they could've adjusted to it.
I'm not criticizing outcomes, I'm criticizing process. There is no other discipline but politics that would try to defend how this was handled. It was a horrid approach.
Just chalking anything up to an 'abundance of caution' and excusing a wretched approach simply shouldn't fly. Somehow our response is immune to any kind of analysis? Suddenly any benefit, no matter how small, is worth any cost? That's absurd.
Shit, we still don't know if some of these measures were counterproductive because of the number of levers we tried to pull at the same time. There's still evidence to suggest that closing schools down provides little impact on spread but could make impacts worse.
Again - these outcomes weren't hard to predict at all but everyone was busy shouting over anyone who said "hey, maybe there are a dozen reasons we aren't Italy and that Imperial College model sure looks shaky as shit..." because they were scared and irrational. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
Sports without fans will suck absolute monkey nuts...especially baseball all played in Arizona. Not buying the "better than nothing!" The crowds are the difference makers to me.
The WNBA still exist despite this being their business model for their entire existence. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
No doubt. I'm sure a lot of fans would but I wouldn't. Just wouldn't be the same. I'd check the highlights out though for sure.
Almost everybody would. Hell there's nothing else on and everybody is stuck at home. We have Patrick Mahomes. Ratings would set records. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
There's still evidence to suggest that closing schools down provides little impact on spread but could make impacts worse.
I get that suspension of social services (how did we get to the point where a school is primary provider of social services) might be a case of the cure doing more harm than the disease.... but I have ZERO understanding how keeping schools open could be justified if you're closing all these other gathering places.
You're talking about assemblies of up to 5000+ people in a confined area for 8 hours a day, many of whom have horrible hygiene. I mean, if schools don't contribute to spread, then it would seem that NO public gatherings/places would contribute to spread. I"ve also seen the talking point of closing schools doesn't help (our governor, Asa, used it quite a bit to justify his "late" decision to close the schools here)., but I guess I just don't understand it. [Reply]
Fauci himself said he would rather overreact than underreact, all the nonscience people will always criticize no matter what but part of the reason it might not get as bad as predicted is because of the measures we've taken.
The same thing happened to public health authorities in San Francisco in the 80's. When they noticed the extreme spread of HIV in gay community, especially among bathhouse cohorts, the city's public health director closed them down. Of course, he was excoriated by the gay community, including some who actually believed that the bathhouses should be closed because of the fact that he was the public health director in the most liberal city of the nation, and if he did that, other backlash to gays would be much more tolerable in other cities. After receiving death threats, he resigned.
Originally Posted by O.city:
Any model is only as good as the assumptions put into it. As we’ve seen they didn’t have anywhere near the right ones be it due to lack of testing or just lack of info I don’t know.
Something is way off for sure
I think some outliers like Italy and that rest home in Washington freaked people the fuck out and bunch of infectious disease specialist who have been waiting their whole career for "the big one" jumped in and started a snowball effect with their doomsday models.
This turned into a "better safe than sorry" mantra which frankly isn't justification for what we have done to the global economy. At least it sure doesn't look that way right now. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
Ratings for WNBA? Don't know a single person that even watches it. Don't know who the last champion was either?
I don't think their really was a "right" answer. It does seem they went too far though. It's not like this was an easy decision though. I think it was a lose lose either way. [Reply]
Fauci himself said he would rather overreact than underreact, all the nonscience people will always criticize no matter what but part of the reason it might not get as bad as predicted is because of the measures we've taken.
Which. Ones?
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'. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Well I don't watch baseball at all so it really wouldn't matter whether there were fans or not. But now that I think about it, it might work for baseball idk I'm not familiar enough w the sport to comment but as far as NFL/NBA no I wouldn't watch it if there were no fans.
They make a huge difference in those sports and make the game more exciting. It wouldn't be the same, it'd be weird. I'd rather watch a movie or play COD and then just check after the game who won.
It would be weird but nobody is missing a Chiefs game. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball:
Probably, but ill bitch about it :-)
Right now I would gladly take the distraction. I think once they get a quick test that works there is no reason to not move forward with sports and the NFL should go ahead with offseason activities. Just test people daily as they enter the building. [Reply]
