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 kgrund:
I agree that false negatives have been more widely covered with PCR because false positives are not as prevalent due to the hypersensitivity of the test. The issue that is becoming more clear is the limited insight from a positive result. Though it is not technically a "false positive", it essentially is in terms of what determining whether the individual is at risk to the community at the time of testing.
But wouldn't that be because we got a late start on testing then our infection got out of control and we didn't and still don't have the capacity? It seems like only in the late May to mid June timeframe when the infections were relatively low where turn around times was 24-48 hours.
Here is something I read the other day that basically says 40% of our tests were useless.
Originally Posted by :
Health experts say two days or less is optimal for returning Covid-19 test results to make them useful for stopping transmission. If test results take more than three days, people are unlikely to self-quarantine and getting in touch with the people they interact with during that time — potentially spreading virus — can be difficult.
“It’s really clear that if tests take more than 48 hours, you’ve lost the window for contact tracing,” Dr. Ashish Jha, professor of global health at Harvard University, said in an interview. “I think, basically, beyond 72 hours, the test is close to useless.”
A survey run by CNBC in partnership with Dynata, a global data and survey firm, suggests almost 40% of Americans had to wait more than three days for their results, rendering them — by Jha’s definition — useless.
With that being said I am in total agreement we need to get past PCR testing and have quick reliable testing even ones we can take at home with instant results. [Reply]
O.city you seem to know far more then I do about this so I will ask you. Is it possible we could get back to more a semblance of normalcy in living with this virus simply by changing the means we test for it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
Since we seeing more schools get infections\spreads especially in Georgia a teacher from Olathe has created a spreadsheet to keep track of it all.
Originally Posted by kgrund:
O.city you seem to know far more then I do about this so I will ask you. Is it possible we could get back to more a semblance of normalcy in living with this virus simply by changing the means we test for it?
Well, the more we learn about it the more we seem to find out a few things. For one, asymptomatic spread doesn’t seem to be a huge factor. So we do need tests that are actually testing to see when you’re the most infectious. So that would allow us to know who needs to quarantine
The problem with pcr is people who aren’t showing symptoms have to quarantine because of a test when they may be not able to make infect others
So yeah testing could help in that manner. But you open other issues with more less “accurate” testing as well:
If you know who’s got it and you can catch it early you could smother it down ideally. So in short.....I dunno. Maybe maybe not [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
Went out with my girlfriend and her two kiddos to mini golf and go-karts tonight. Outside. Beautiful weather. Had an awesome time.
First time life has felt semi-normal for more than a few minutes in months.
Living life is epic.....don’t tell DilDong lol [Reply]
I haven't really paid much attention to models of late but the new IHME model came out yesterday and they are projecting alot more deaths, 310K by December. I was surprised by that then I realized that is just averaging around 1200 deaths per day which is close to what we are at right now. That is hard to comprehend. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
I haven't really paid much attention to models of late but the new IHME model came out yesterday and they are projecting alot more deaths, 310K by December. I was surprised by that then I realized that is just averaging around 1200 deaths per day which is close to what we are at right now. That is hard to comprehend.
They have us hitting 5k deaths a day by December. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
I haven't really paid much attention to models of late but the new IHME model came out yesterday and they are projecting alot more deaths, 310K by December. I was surprised by that then I realized that is just averaging around 1200 deaths per day which is close to what we are at right now. That is hard to comprehend.
Not really. I guess it depends on what you mean by "close"? We had 2 weeks with some consecutive high days but since August 8th we have only had 3 days above 1,200 thankfully.
Deaths are looking like they have rolled over a bit so I don't know that I can buy into their model as of yet.
FTR, the 7 day moving average of deaths has not been over 1,200 since the end of May. The 3 day hasn't been over 1,200 in almost 10 days. [Reply]