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 BIG_DADDY:
Don't you dare talk about the huge backside issues we are creating in this thread. This thread is for fear porn lovers only.
In 1918 there were 50 million deaths worldwide with a fraction of the total population. We haven't even reached 50k globally. We are shooting ourselves in the foot if we don't get this thing up and running again soon.
This message brought to you by the logical foundation, now back to your regular scheduled fear porn in progress.
You need to be more specific. How many deaths a day, month, or year would you consider enough to justify the approach the USA has taken in dealing with this pandemic? [Reply]
Monticore 04-02-2020, 12:33 PM
This message has been deleted by Monticore.
Reason: i shouldn't feed the troll
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Been curious about southern Florida for sure.
Miami-Dade issued their lockdown about a week ago, right?
It's an interesting testbed for the 'severity vs. initial load' thing. Seems that a lot of their exposure would be in more open areas, right? Not a resident of southern Florida but I've been to the area a handful of times. People are pretty much always outside, even when they're in crowds.
So it'll be interesting to see if those more 'incidental' exposures rather than the prolonged ones that come from closer-quarters, more enclosed living IN NYC have higher severity rates.
It'll also be interesting to see if Miami-Dade experiences lessened impact than areas around Florida that were less proactive. If my memory serves, they were among the very first major counties in the country to push pause.
It's just so different from NY in so many ways that it may provide some additional insight; a date point from the other side of the curve, so to speak.
What are your thoughts or what have you seen regarding those areas having warmed up recently? I would think a couple of weeks without large indoor gatherings would be hugely beneficial, but it also goes back to surface contact vs. a cough in the face, etc. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Titty Meat:
I seem to remember Fauci saying something about how places will initially have low counts but that doesn't mean much because at any point they could get hit hard.
Alot of these counties made the call too late or havwnt even done it yet.
My fear is that some of these counties just cant support an outbreak. What harm would there be for the gov to call in the stay in place and just call it a day? Apologies if you covered that. This is my first day of spending a good amount of time in this thread I tried to look up your past responses I didnt see it.
Spend much time in rural Missouri?
Harm or not, what I'm saying is that most of them will simply ignore it.
And yeah, lack of existing medical infrastructure is a concern in rural areas, but it's a concern that isn't going anywhere. Ever. So if you just try to effectively wall them off - what happens in a few months? Same thing. The 'buy time' argument in regions with significant hospital capacity that just needs to gear up and bear down - I can see that argument. I agree (partially ) with it.
But man - what's stalling for time due in Sullivan County? How are you going to appreciably alter outcomes over a real timeline by having Parson tell them to stay at home? Which they will largely ignore anyway?
What may actually HELP someplace like that could be having your impact come through now, when statewide travel is already reduced due to major counties closing their gates (thus slowing the initial influx). And when you have very few ancillary respiratory issues that would otherwise be bogging down what little hospital capacity they already have.
When stalling isn't likely to yield significant benefit to them - timing their window could be what's more important. And because of the nature of spread over distance, it will also have it slowly work through those rural counties and thus reduce the possibility of a larger outbreak when a state-wide order is lifted.
You ask what the harm is, but I struggle to see any clear benefit either. So ultimately shouldn't they be able to maintain some level of autonomy? [Reply]
No doubt. I'm already impressed you worked in a World War analogy so seamlessly. Just saying if an opportunity presents itself somewhere in this cluster**** of a process and you make a Mincemeat analogy work, I will be impressed forever. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
What are your thoughts or what have you seen regarding those areas having warmed up recently? I would think a couple of weeks without large indoor gatherings would be hugely beneficial, but it also goes back to surface contact vs. a cough in the face, etc.
Just not enough data.
About a week ago some information emerged suggesting reduced transmittability in warmer climates (but not an elimination by any stretch). And the institutional knowledge as it relates to most coronaviruses and high humidity seems strong.
I mean some people are trying to say "look - Mexico has this, so heat doesn't matter!" and I don't think that's a fair conclusion to reach at all. Humidity/heat impacts a viruses viability outside of a host. And thus how strong it may be when it infects a person. Or the likelihood of infection in the event there's an immune response.
But I think in this first stage with no immune response built in, it seems like it just doesn't take much to set in so that diminished viability is muted somewhat. Now it may STILL yield less extreme outcomes, because it entered the gates a little weaker.
But we just don't know. And so many areas that are warm right now are equatorial regions with iffy hygiene, poor medical facilities and high population density so that throws a monkey in the wrench.
I remain hopeful that warmer, more humid weather will yield positive changes in transmission rates, severity or both. It's based largely on the history of other similar diseases and some initial study done on this one, but there's not enough to say it will happen with any certainty. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Chiefspants:
No doubt. I'm already impressed you worked in a World War analogy so seamlessly. Just saying if an opportunity presents itself somewhere in this cluster**** of a process and you make a Mincemeat analogy work, I will be impressed forever.
For the record, I've actually used Mincemeat on this board, at least once and maybe twice.
I think my application of the affair to Marcus Peters technique in coverage may be my capstone achievement in tortured historical analogies. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Spend much time in rural Missouri?
Harm or not, what I'm saying is that most of them will simply ignore it.
And yeah, lack of existing medical infrastructure is a concern in rural areas, but it's a concern that isn't going anywhere. Ever. So if you just try to effectively wall them off - what happens in a few months? Same thing. The 'buy time' argument in regions with significant hospital capacity that just needs to gear up and bear down - I can see that argument. I agree (partially ) with it.
But man - what's stalling for time due in Sullivan County? How are you going to appreciably alter outcomes over a real timeline by having Parson tell them to stay at home? Which they will largely ignore anyway?
What may actually HELP someplace like that could be having your impact come through now, when statewide travel is already reduced due to major counties closing their gates (thus slowing the initial influx). And when you have very few ancillary respiratory issues that would otherwise be bogging down what little hospital capacity they already have.
When stalling isn't likely to yield significant benefit to them - timing their window could be what's more important. And because of the nature of spread over distance, it will also have it slowly work through those rural counties and thus reduce the possibility of a larger outbreak when a state-wide order is lifted.
You ask what the harm is, but I struggle to see any clear benefit either. So ultimately shouldn't they be able to maintain some level of autonomy?
Ya got me on the first one. I havent even left Jackson/Johnson Co in months.
Agreed but we have seen some data to suggest just 25% following can make a difference.
Yup buying time to allow hospitals in places like St Louis/KC was my argument. Also the lower numbers during the first wave the faster we can get back on track with our economy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
For the record, I've actually used Mincemeat on this board, at least once and maybe twice.
Oh, I remember your exact analogy. Mincemeat is my favorite lesson to teach as a history teacher and when I saw you give that analogy it even made me research instances where the Nazi's didn't act on good intelligence simply from the fear of getting humiliated again. Before your post, I didn't realize there were even documented examples of the Nazi's refusing to act after that event. The fact that Ian Fleming and even Roald Dahl had connections to British espionage during that time makes it even better. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Titty Meat:
Ya got me on the first one. I havent even left Jackson/Johnson Co in months.
Agreed but we have seen some data to suggest just 25% following can make a difference.
Yup buying time to allow hospitals in places like St Louis/KC was my argument. Also the lower numbers during the first wave the faster we can get back on track with our economy.
Those rural economies are so insular, though.
They have nominal impact on the greater Missouri economy and shuttering them early would be brutal in those areas, where they're truly not equipped for it.
And let's not ignore the elephant in the room which is drug abuse in rural areas. I mentioned it with Sauto previously but until you kinda occupy the space a little, you don't understand how insidious it is in smaller rural communities.
I think some of the worries that exist in more urban regions are essentially exponentially increased in rural ones. And I think the benefits of stalling are reduced a fair amount as well (as will be any adherence to the order as it stands).
I think they need a real light touch and dropping a statewide hammer when half the counties in the state haven't been impacted yet is just not the way to do it. You need to make them come to the idea, not force the idea onto them. It's the only way to get a response that matters and it's the best way to minimize negative impacts and still trying to extract some positive ones. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Yeah, a week or two ago someone said dogs can get it from humans and then it kinda disappeared and was chalked up as likely 'residual virus' in the dog but nothing that it actually 'caught'.
And seemingly nothing indicates that domestic animals are capable of being carriers.
Until I see anything definitive, that's just borrowing worry. Looking for ghosts when there is no shortage of monsters.
You asked earlier what my plan would be and honestly I had never thought about it. I have ever since though.
I would have shut everything down when they started the 15 days to slow the spread. Quarantine style. Give everyone enough time to get food and lock down.
After 3 weeks you have to test good to get out and go back to work. Anyone that doesn’t test good stays in until they do.
The healthy people would all be going back to work next week if they had done that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
No, it doesn't. The article I posted stated the virus was trending down in the KC Metro area. I didn't see anything in your article that said anything one way or the other about that.
Your article referenced one day by the looks of it. [Reply]
it's weird how this map about how ppl in the south are still traveling corresponds directly to the locations of food deserts in this country. these 2 things are probably totally unrelated, I'm sure pic.twitter.com/nXwjCdygel
— the thicc husband & father (@lukeisamazing) April 2, 2020
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Those rural economies are so insular, though.
They have nominal impact on the greater Missouri economy and shuttering them early would be brutal in those areas, where they're truly not equipped for it.
And let's not ignore the elephant in the room which is drug abuse in rural areas. I mentioned it with Sauto previously but until you kinda occupy the space a little, you don't understand how insidious it is in smaller rural communities.
I think some of the worries that exist in more urban regions are essentially exponentially increased in rural ones. And I think the benefits of stalling are reduced a fair amount as well (as will be any adherence to the order as it stands).
I think they need a real light touch and dropping a statewide hammer when half the counties in the state haven't been impacted yet is just not the way to do it. You need to make them come to the idea, not force the idea onto them. It's the only way to get a response that matters and it's the best way to minimize negative impacts and still trying to extract some positive ones.
I don't live out there but I am fully aware of how completely fucked up on drugs a lot of rural communities are. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SAUTO:
Your article referenced one day by the looks of it.
Yep, they used the word "trending" based on 1 day.....except they didn't
Here is what was said...
Originally Posted by : Right now, the virus is trending down in the metro. But that will only continue, if people stay and home and continue to social distance. Hoeger is worried people are starting to relax too early.
