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 DaneMcCloud:
It's really sad that the lowest wage earners are those that are screaming the loudest to "open back up".
Married people earning $100K+ working from the comfort of their homes and single people earning $50k+ from the comfort of their apartments are not clamoring for things to "open back up" (although I know a few parents with younger children that would like to see the schools open but that's a different subject altogether).
Originally Posted by shitgoose:
So in that scenario the Salon or any business could be liable for spreading any infectious disease or would it be limited to Covid-19 only?
If I go to the salon and get a haircut, contract the flu and die because I also have some underlying health condition, my family could sue the Salon?
First off, I don't think there's a salon owner that would even take that risk because even if their insurance would cover a lawsuit for a COVID-19 hospitalization or death, it would likely only cover it once.
And who in their right mind would take that kind of risk? [Reply]
Originally Posted by shitgoose:
So a salon that reopens could be liable for what exactly? Do gas stations or liquor stores that never closed carry the same liability?
Most haircut salons/barber shops have liability insurance. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Exactly the problem. It's real easy for people who aren't in the position to tell someone else how they will run their business. It's true the big chain restaurants will be able to open at something like half capacity and get by. Small businesses on the other hand don't have that luxury.
So as with everything else in life it comes down to the risks you're willing to take. As a business owner are you willing to fully open up as much as you are allowed? As a customer are you willing to go to a place that opened up fully?
Obviously there is no one right answer but there is still a tendency to play down the economic impact this is and is going to continue having.
Pretty clear answer is that the only types of commercial establishments that are going to be available to the general public will be super-well capitalized megacorps that can amass hundreds of millions in cash equivalents or have main line access to central banks to get lending.
Small businesses will never have either, so they're inherently more risky and thus will only be able to borrow paltry sums at usurious rates from whatever massive banks are around in five years' time.
The idea of entrepreneurship is pretty much over in this country, unless you're the patron of some large institutional seed money from the government or an academic institution which will certainly have powerful strings attached to it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
Most haircut salons/barber shops have liability insurance.
But that liability insurance isn't going to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses and if it did, it would cover for one time only, basically leaving the business uninsurable moving forward. [Reply]
What if 20% of those people were going to get a government funded raise during that year? What if 2% of those people don't even have or want jobs? What if 20% are already retired? What if only 10% of them stand to lose their business?
I just want to know if we can all go home if someone dies prior to the vote.
The 600 to 1 ratio isn't hypothetical. It is this the actual ratio of those who have lost their job in the last 8 weeks compared to those that have died and it is growing daily.... [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
First off, I don't think there's a salon owner that would even take that risk because even if their insurance would cover a lawsuit for a COVID-19 hospitalization or death, it would likely only cover it once.
And who in their right mind would take that kind of risk?
It's the fact that NOW we are so serious about preventing the spread of infectious disease to the point of suing businesses that people voluntarily visit for "non-essential" services. It's bullshit. If you don't want to contract Covid-19 stay home. If a person leaves there home they have now assumed the risk.
Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud:
But that liability insurance isn't going to cover hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical expenses and if it did, it would cover for one time only, basically leaving the business uninsurable moving forward.
I'd be surprised if any liability suit would be successful unless a business is being truly negligent. As long as they're adhering to their state and local guidelines, there's not much someone can fault them for. [Reply]
Originally Posted by shitgoose:
It's the fact that NOW we are so serious about preventing the spread of infectious disease to the point of suing businesses that people voluntarily visit for "non-essential" services. It's bullshit. If you don't want to contract Covid-19 stay home. If a person leaves there home they have now assumed the risk.
Originally Posted by shitgoose:
It's the fact that NOW we are so serious about preventing the spread of infectious disease to the point of suing businesses that people voluntarily visit for "non-essential" services. It's bullshit. If you don't want to contract Covid-19 stay home. If a person leaves there home they have now assumed the risk.
End rant.
I get that, the general problem though is what if that person is careless and spreads it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I'd be surprised if any liability suit would be successful unless a business is being truly negligent. As long as they're adhering to their state and local guidelines, there's not much someone can fault them for.
In the end if I can sue you for getting Covid-19 I can sue you for getting the flu a cold, etc., etc. Aside from a worker knowingly having been infected and deliberately coughing on customers you have a hard time suing anyone. [Reply]
