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 Donger:
While that would be fantastic, I'm not seeing how deaths are going to decrease while cases are increasing. What am I missing?
I think he is saying that post vaccination availability, the most vulnerable people that are dying should have some form of protection to bring down that number. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
While that would be fantastic, I'm not seeing how deaths are going to decrease while cases are increasing. What am I missing?
We're vaccinating the most vulnerable people first. [Reply]
That's been the play all along. Quarantine the most vulnerable until a vaccine. The rest of us were 99.999 percent going to be ok. Meanwhile, we absolutely wrecked the economy and cause insurmountable mental health damage that will have severe long term effects [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
I once served on a child automotive fatality review board. It's a great example of how nothing is really straightforward. If you have a case where a kid was killed in a routine minor crash by a red light runner solely because he wasn't in a car seat, then was the death due to running a red light or not being in a car seat? Or if a drunk 16 year-old runs the right tires off of the shoulder on a rural road, overcorrects because she's never been in that situation, and then rolls the car, is it a drunk driver fatality or a poor training fatality or an engineering fatality for the shoulder dropoff or a fatality due to a long response time given the location?
It's easy to think that this stuff is straightforward, but there's often a cascade effect where one thing may start the problem but it's the combination that results in the death.
Originally Posted by Kidd Lex:
That had to be a tough assignment.
I got kind of desensitized to the common types of deaths, which is probably not nice to say, but there were some pretty common story lines that we heard over and over. Seriously, parents - train your kid how to not overcorrect if their tire drops off onto a shoulder. But every once in a while one would come along that would make me cringe, either due to the accident itself or the situation leading up to the accident. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
I bet we'll see plenty of CASES until we get up toward 60-70%, but in theory we should see DEATHS start to drop VERY soon (maybe even by the end of January). That's the hope at least.
If cases are going up why would deaths go down? Aside from learning to treat better?
Having said that we have to keep in mind that cases have surged more than 7 times of what they were in the first wave while deaths have risen rather minimally all things considered. We peaked at around 35k daily cases in the first wave with a peak of around 2.75k daily deaths.
We are now at 251k new daily cases and I say only (but still a lot) 3.4k daily deaths.
So while I don't get where you get rising cases but less deaths I do see deaths dropping significantly with only a minimal drop in cases. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
If cases are going up why would deaths go down? Aside from learning to treat better?
Having said that we have to keep in mind that cases have surged more than 7 times of what they were in the first wave while deaths have risen rather minimally all things considered. We peaked at around 35k daily cases in the first wave with a peak of around 2.75k daily deaths.
We are now at 251k new daily cases and I say only (but still a lot) 3.4k daily deaths.
So while I don't get where you get rising cases but less deaths I do see deaths dropping significantly with only a minimal drop in cases.
BUT BUT BUT according to Dinger, you'd think we'd have seven times the deaths [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
You were not seriously asking. If you were it came off as rather rhetorical.
I have said this a hundred times and I will say it again, if you want to lock things down then fine. But you have to compensate the businesses and their employees and such.
I feel a lot better about it if a business suffers because people choose not to go out. That can happen at any time for any reason and does every few years because of simple economic swings.
That being said I am not a fan of shutting people down and tell them too ****ing bad when I have a pay check and I am not impacted by said edict.
Here is the dilemma though Pete and that is the Federal government have failed in their responsibilities so what are the local and state governments supposed to do? They don't have the ability to pay businesses or people only the federal government does.
If you are mayor or governor your #1 responsibility in situations like this is to save as many lives as you can.
You just can't put this all on the local\state governments and then blame them for not paying businesses to stay open.
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
Here is the dilemma though Pete and that is the Federal government have failed in their responsibilities so what are the local and state governments supposed to do? They don't have the ability to pay businesses or people only the federal government does.
If you are mayor or governor your #1 responsibility in situations like this is to save as many lives as you can.
You just can't put this all on the local\state governments and then blame them for not paying businesses to stay open.
Just my .02 cents
I am not going to get into this because it will get very political, very fast. Suffice it to say there needs(ed) to be a concerted effort by all levels but yeah, politics. [Reply]
