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.”
Okay. You don't release those patients to a nursing home. Where do you put them and what do you do with all of your new admits?
Moreover, don't we need to establish that this order actually lead to an increase in mortality compared to other options? If one state has a higher percentage of nursing home deaths while expressly forbidding COVID transfers, doesn't that suggest that the edict itself might not be sole cause of the mortality rates? [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
I understand where you are coming from but releasing infected people into a pit of ultra-high risk people seems to be rather self-defeating.
I mean you simply cannot socially distance in nursing homes and assisted living establishments. I don't see how it is even possible? And many of the nursing homes I have been in the patients share a room that isn't that big so spreading it has got to be as easy as throwing gas on a flame in those places. [Reply]
Originally Posted by : Around 35% of people with COVID-19 believed to be asymptomatic
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention now estimate that about 35% of people with COVID-19 don't exhibit symptoms, a significant jump compared to what health officials initially thought.
The CDC also estimated that 40% of transmission is believed to occur before the onset of any symptoms.
The disclosure raises serious concerns about how states and local officials can prevent outbreaks if about a third of Americans infected by the virus don’t know it.
Dr. Deborah Birx, coordinator of the White House coronavirus task force, said scientists had initially worked under the impression that around 11% to 15% of cases were asymptomatic.
She said the knowledge about potential transmission was a good reason to impose widespread testing in some communities, like nursing homes and meatpacking plants, where social distancing is difficult.
“Now we know it’s at least 35 [percent]. It may be greater than that because it may be so age dependent – that there may be a lot of people under 30 that have the virus and are shedding the virus and aren’t aware that they have the virus,” she said.
The CDC said the estimate will likely change as the agency learns more about the virus.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Okay. You don't release those patients to a nursing home. Where do you put them and what do you do with all of your new admits?
Moreover, don't we need to establish that this order actually lead to an increase in mortality compared to other options? If one state has a higher percentage of nursing home deaths while expressly forbidding COVID transfers, doesn't that suggest that the edict itself might not be sole cause of the mortality rates?
welp CONSIDERING emergency hospitals were setup and NEVER FUCKING USED.........
I don't know where you get your information from. USS Comfort saw 179 people over 2 months. They converted a convention center that saw no one.
MAYBE, JUST MAYBE........... Use the capacity you clearly never came close to running out of. INSTEAD of sticking sick people back around the most vulnerable to the fucking virus. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
100% unjustifiable too
"That was welcomed by one of the many hospital systems and nursing homes surveyed for AP’s count. Northwell Health said three of its medical centers were so overtaxed at one point they had to put some ICU patients in hallways. To relieve pressure, the company eventually sent more than 1,700 COVID-19 patients to nursing homes. " [Reply]
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
100% unjustifiable too
I agree but like Hamas said you would run out of bed space. But we were supposed to be setting up all these tents and other places for beds and we were told they weren't needed.
To keep it simple as of 5/16/20 you had about 907k deaths. 686k or 75% of those were people over the age of 65. I wonder how many of those were in a nursing home or assisted living? [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
"That was welcomed by one of the many hospital systems and nursing homes surveyed for AP’s count. Northwell Health said three of its medical centers were so overtaxed at one point they had to put some ICU patients in hallways. To relieve pressure, the company eventually sent more than 1,700 COVID-19 patients to nursing homes. "
Cool I guess your going to ignore the emergency hospitals that were set up and the US Navy's Medical ship that didn't see shit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
welp CONSIDERING emergency hospitals were setup and NEVER ****ING USED.........
I don't know where you get your information from. USS Comfort saw 179 people over 2 months. They converted a convention center that saw no one.
MAYBE, JUST MAYBE........... Use the capacity you clearly never came close to running out of. INSTEAD of sticking sick people back around the most vulnerable to the ****ing virus.
Are we just assuming everyone sheds this virus at the same rate or whatever? Something just doesn't quite add up. I mean it's almost like and I know this is an exaggeration but it's almost like you're either positive with symptoms, asymptomatic or you are both but had a false negative.
Sorry man but this is the fucking epitome of Schrodinger's Cat. IF you have no symptoms until you take Covid test and an antibody test you both have the virus and don't have the virus. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
FTR, is questioning people's patriotism something you generally think should be expressed any old time you get the notion to?
I think it's patriotic and a civic duty to wear a mask if it, in any way, helps with preventing the spread of a disease which has caused a pandemic, Baby Lee. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BleedingRed:
Cool I guess your going to ignore the emergency hospitals that were set up and the US Navy's Medical ship that didn't see shit.
I get that you want to hop on your high horse and feign outrage, but you might want to actually look at the information. Given that there wasn't a tremendous increase in nursing home mortality as a share of the overall mortality compared to places where such policies were forbidden, it's a stretch to claim that this policy led to some massive increase in death. I also don't know if the people they transferred would still be infectious. I'm sure some of them likely were and some of them weren't. We don't know the percentages at this point, though.
I don't think it was particularly wise, but again, the hospitals themselves were stressed with critical patients. As to why the Comfort wasn't used, I don't know. It was supposed to be for non-COVID patients, then positive patients were transferred on board. I'm not going to disagree that it was a mess.
Their ICUs were so overwhelmed that people that normally would get an isolation room were in hallways. Given that those are the people at the most acute risk in a triage situation, that's a pretty serious lack of resources.
Ideally, you would like for every patient to be hospitalized, isolated, and have one-on-one care, but that's not realistic. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Javitz had over 1,000 patients.
Yes over its entire use before they shut it down for lack of need it saw a total of 1,000 people. Meanwhile it was setup to handle many thousands more. Correct donger.. Goood boy.
No explain why this emergency Hospital was shut down and a US NAVY SHIP which could hold another 1,000 were not used for some of the 4,300 fucking CoronaVirus seniors that were sent back to there god damn nursing homes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I get that you want to hop on your high horse and feign outrage, but you might want to actually look at the information. Given that there wasn't a tremendous increase in nursing home mortality as a share of the overall mortality compared to places where such policies were forbidden, it's a stretch to claim that this policy led to some massive increase in death. I also don't know if the people they transferred would still be infectious. I'm sure some of them likely were and some of them weren't. We don't know the percentages at this point, though.
I don't think it was particularly wise, but again, the hospitals themselves were stressed with critical patients. As to why the Comfort wasn't used, I don't know. It was supposed to be for non-COVID patients, then positive patients were transferred on board. I'm not going to disagree that it was a mess.
Their ICUs were so overwhelmed that people that normally would get an isolation room were in hallways. Given that those are the people at the most acute risk in a triage situation, that's a pretty serious lack of resources.
Ideally, you would like for every patient to be hospitalized, isolated, and have one-on-one care, but that's not realistic.