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 petegz28:
Honestly I think it comes down to who is being hospitalized. If they are younger they generally are in and out fairly quickly. There is still plenty of beds available at the moment and we are not seeing a strain on resources at the time though we are busy.
Well yeah
But again, the more spread there is the harder it is to shield those who need shielded [Reply]
But again, the more spread there is the harder it is to shield those who need shielded
Yep, no easy answers to that. I've told my Parents I think they need to pick and choose carefully where they go and for how long and to use things like curb side and delivery services.
I got told to mind my own business.
But they are not the issue. The issue is the ones in care facilities. Those are victim of employees bringing the virus in, not them going out and contracting. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Yep, no easy answers to that. I've told my Parents I think they need to pick and choose carefully where they go and for how long and to use things like curb side and delivery services.
I got told to mind my own business.
But they are not the issue. The issue is the ones in care facilities. Those are victim of employees bringing the virus in, not them going out and contracting.
My parents told me the same thing a few months ago.
Then our family started dying and things changed. They’re picking and choosing what they do now.
Their church has had an elder and like 4 other members pas in the past 2 weeks so they’re all on high alert [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
My parents told me the same thing a few months ago.
Then our family started dying and things changed. They’re picking and choosing what they do now.
Their church has had an elder and like 4 other members pas in the past 2 weeks so they’re all on high alert
It's tough. I have my Wife's Aunt who is super mask, super isolation and well into her 70's.
Then there's my Parents that are like "if I hide until they figure this shit out I'll either be dead or won't be able to go out and enjoy life for other reasons".
I mean it's tough to tell people who know they are in the home stretch of life to spend what might be the rest of their days locked up inside and in fear.
I get it. I mean I wouldn't want to work my ass off and get into retirement and then get told, sorry, at the time you're supposed to be enjoying the rest of your years we're gonna need you to go ahead and just stay home. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
And those in facilities aren’t victims
The ones bringing it in may not know they have it. Or they’re sick but can’t afford to not work
I don't mean victim as in someone is purposely infecting them. Just that they are already isolated and locked down and they are getting it because someone is bringing it in. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
It's tough. I have my Wife's Aunt who is super mask, super isolation and well into her 70's.
Then there's my Parents that are like "if I hide until they figure this shit out I;ll either be dead or won't be able to go out and enjoy life for other reasons".
I mean it's tough to tell people who know they are in the home stretch of life to spend what might be the rest of their days locked up inside and in fear.
I get it. I mean I wouldn't want to work my ass off and get into retirement and then get told, sorry, at the time you're supposed to be enjoying the rest of your years we're gonna need you to go ahead and just stay home.
When it hits close to home, it’s easier to reason staying a bit more isolated. It doesn’t mean you can’t do anything, just make smart decisions.
We’re gonna cancel all our big holiday gatherings this year. It sucks for sure but it is what it is.
We’re around the corner from vaccines and better therapeutics So just gotta make it a couple more months [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
I don't mean victim as in someone is purposely infecting them. Just that they are already isolated and locked down and they are getting it because someone is bringing it in.
Originally Posted by O.city:
When it hits close to home, it’s easier to reason staying a bit more isolated. It doesn’t mean you can’t do anything, just make smart decisions.
We’re gonna cancel all our big holiday gatherings this year. It sucks for sure but it is what it is.
We’re around the corner from vaccines and better therapeutics So just gotta make it a couple more months
We hope anyway. It seems that way but who knows. I've always been of the opinion until we have the vaccine I am not banking on us having a vaccine. It looks as if we will but again, believe it when I see it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
How do you stop it from getting in them?
That's a tough one. Stricter screening and testing is about all you can do. I think that's where these rapid tests can come into play. Each person gets tested as they walk in the door and you can't work until you're clear. You can never eliminate the risk 100% but I am not sure what else you can do.
That being said we can't shut down the rest of the world either. As my Grandmother said until the day she died in her late 90's, "getting old ain't for pussies". [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
That's a tough one. Stricter screening and testing is about all you can do. I think that's where these rapid tests can come into play. Each person gets tested as they walk in the door and you can't work until you're clear. You can never eliminate the risk 100% but I am not sure what else you can do.
That being said we can't shut down the rest of the world either. As my Grandmother said until the day she died in her late 90's, "getting old ain't for pussies".
We won’t be back up running as normal as long as the virus is running rampant.
It’s why the “just shield those at risk” thing was kinda cover for “we gotta just get back to normal and hope for the best”
Controlling the spread was always the best way back to normal [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
We won’t be back up running as normal as long as the virus is running rampant.
It’s why the “just shield those at risk” thing was kinda cover for “we gotta just get back to normal and hope for the best”
Controlling the spread was always the best way back to normal
Controlling yes but some people for various reasons want to equate controlling with preventing.
It was said at the very start the entire point of flattening the curve was to prevent the hospitals from being overrun and people dying because they could not get care. Everyone from medical to mathematical professionals all stated that flattening the curve meant in theory the same amount of people would affected but over a longer period of time.
I know the hope was it would prevent some deaths and maybe even some infections and it probably did on the margins.
I think you get that so I am not saying you were one of the people saying otherwise. Just that at times I think we have to realize there really is only so much we can do one way or the other. Once the vaccine is out things will probably get better but probably not nearly as fast as some think or hope. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Controlling yes but some people for various reasons want to equate controlling with preventing.
It was said at the very start the entire point of flattening the curve was to prevent the hospitals from being overrun and people dying because they could not get care. Everyone from medical to mathematical professionals all stated that flattening the curve meant in theory the same amount of people would affected but over a longer period of time.
I know the hope was it would prevent some deaths and maybe even some infections and it probably did on the margins.
I think you get that so I am not saying you were one of the people saying otherwise. Just that at times I think we have to realize there really is only so much we can do one way or the other. Once the vaccine is out things will probably get better but probably not nearly as fast as some think or hope.
Controlling the spread with more testing early like we are now would have helped.
Once we know hospitals are getting crushed we can be a bit more lax but the problem is it it will eventually ramp back as long as there are viral vectors.
It’ll take a bit to vaccinate everyone but again it could happen quick and efficient but there are politics things we’d have to talk about that aren’t supposed to happen here anyway [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Controlling the spread with more testing early like we are now would have helped.
Once we know hospitals are getting crushed we can be a bit more lax but the problem is it it will eventually ramp back as long as there are viral vectors.
It’ll take a bit to vaccinate everyone but again it could happen quick and efficient but there are politics things we’d have to talk about that aren’t supposed to happen here anyway
I think we just didn't have the infrastructure to do the kind of testing we are now. We didn't have the tests and we didn't have the labs to process all of the tests.
But I agree, I think there are some aspects at play that we can't talk about in here but it does bring up the ironic or otherwise coincidental timing of the surge in cases in relation to events taking place in the next 2 weeks. [Reply]