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.”
My mom was exposed
Did not have symptoms
Got tested 6 days after exposure
Was positive
To Marcellus' point, she was told by the urgent care that she was wasting resources by getting a test without showing any symptoms.
I think anyone who gets exposed needs to be tested until we know that asymptomatic people are not contagious.
With turnaround times and such, I get what he's saying. It makes sense. If you can have for instance these new tests that are much more instant, go for it.
The problem like we've talked about, with PCR is it really doesn't give insight into if you are infectious or even have a current infection. Just taht you have viral genetic material. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
With turnaround times and such, I get what he's saying. It makes sense. If you can have for instance these new tests that are much more instant, go for it.
The problem like we've talked about, with PCR is it really doesn't give insight into if you are infectious or even have a current infection. Just taht you have viral genetic material.
The media is equating positive PCR tests with Corona "infections". Most people don't understand that they aren't testing for actual active infections. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
If you don't test, you're potentially quarantining people who don't need to be though.
If you automatically quarantine anyone who's had known contact for 14 days, you would likely end up doing it to alot where it's not necessary.
You have to wait 10 days from exposure to test because of incubation time, or become symptomatic to know if the test is going to be accurate, that is already a 10 day quarantine. You then wait 2 days for results usually which makes it 12 days of a 14 day quarantine already.
Any test you do before the 10 day incubation time means nothing if its negative. If you are asymptomatic they will likely not test you for this reason.
On top of that it will tell you nothing about asymptomatic spread because the person will be quarantined the whole time and not out and about spreading anything regardless of whether they were positive or not.
We realized some time back that we could get employees back to work faster if they were symptomatic and tested positive than we could if they were a close contact because of their spouse for example.
That scenario totally sucks because you have to wait for the spouse to become asymptomatic for 5 days then you have to go 14 days after that if the person continues to be asymptomatic before they are released from quarantine.
We have had a few people miss close to a month because of these scenarios even though they were quarantined the whole time. [Reply]
One last comment on this for the day and then I am done.
I think O.city and others are trying to compare the merits of doing large scale study of asymptomatic spread which would mean doing extensive contact tracing on people tested positive who never had symptoms to see if any of the people they came into contact with tested positive vs the most efficient way to handle cases and keep moving through this thing.
Its really 2 different topics and the CDC guidelines are more about the second scenario.
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
You have to wait 10 days from exposure to test because of incubation time, or become symptomatic to know if the test is going to be accurate, that is already a 10 day quarantine. You then wait 2 days for results usually which makes it 12 days of a 14 day quarantine already.
Any test you do before the 10 day incubation time means nothing if its negative. If you are asymptomatic they will likely not test you for this reason.
On top of that it will tell you nothing about asymptomatic spread because the person will be quarantined the whole time and not out and about spreading anything regardless of whether they were positive or not.
We realized some time back that we could get employees back to work faster if they were symptomatic and tested positive than we could if they were a close contact because of their spouse for example.
That scenario totally sucks because you have to wait for the spouse to become asymptomatic for 5 days then you have to go 14 days after that if the person continues to be asymptomatic before they are released from quarantine.
We have had a few people miss close to a month because of these scenarios even though they were quarantined the whole time.
You don't have wait 10 days I think it is more like 5 days but I get your overall point. Though if the health department contacts you more than likely already half way through that time frame or longer due to testing lags and contract tracing.
That is why we need a testing breakthrough like home testing. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
You have to wait 10 days from exposure to test because of incubation time, or become symptomatic to know if the test is going to be accurate, that is already a 10 day quarantine. You then wait 2 days for results usually which makes it 12 days of a 14 day quarantine already.
Any test you do before the 10 day incubation time means nothing if its negative. If you are asymptomatic they will likely not test you for this reason.
On top of that it will tell you nothing about asymptomatic spread because the person will be quarantined the whole time and not out and about spreading anything regardless of whether they were positive or not.
We realized some time back that we could get employees back to work faster if they were symptomatic and tested positive than we could if they were a close contact because of their spouse for example.
That scenario totally sucks because you have to wait for the spouse to become asymptomatic for 5 days then you have to go 14 days after that if the person continues to be asymptomatic before they are released from quarantine.
We have had a few people miss close to a month because of these scenarios even though they were quarantined the whole time.
Yeah, the 14 day incubation period makes it tough because testing just gives you a snapshot of that person at that time, they could develop infection later etc.
If you're gonna tell people to go ahead and quarantine anyway, testing is not really necessary so that much is for sure correct. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Yeah, the 14 day incubation period makes it tough because testing just gives you a snapshot of that person at that time, they could develop infection later etc.
If you're gonna tell people to go ahead and quarantine anyway, testing is not really necessary so that much is for sure correct.
If the median incubation period is nine days, doesn't this imply that the graph of each case's incubation period looks like steep dip of a roller coaster, where ~30-40% of cases have a 2 or 3 day incubation period while an equal amount is at the 13-14 day mark with the remaining 20-40% in the gulley between those two points? [Reply]
Originally Posted by dirk digler:
You don't have wait 10 days I think it is more like 5 days but I get your overall point. Though if the health department contacts you more than likely already half way through that time frame or longer due to testing lags and contract tracing.
That is why we need a testing breakthrough like home testing.
I guess I'll add one more post.
This is an actual scenario that happened as best I can remember, it was back in early June I think.
Employee's spouse is identified as a close contact so they and their wife and child end up in quarantine.
10 days into quarantine wife develops symptoms, husband is still asymptomatic. Wife tests positive.
Husband has to wait until wife is symptom free for 5 days and then restart 14 day quarantine required by health department. Sometime during that quarantine the kid gets a fever and tests positive. :-)
I cant remember how many days after that we were able to get the employee a test at Occumed even though he was asymptomatic (we are an essential business so we were able to get it done by request) but he tested negative and was never symptomatic. Don't know if he had already had it or was just immune but he was off a long time and we were trying to figure out how to get through it as fast as possible as was he since his quarantine pay had run out weeks prior. (we pay 2 weeks automatically if its an exposure from outside work, no limit if its at work) [Reply]
Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower:
If the median incubation period is nine days, doesn't this imply that the graph of each case's incubation period looks like steep dip of a roller coaster, where ~30-40% of cases have a 2 or 3 day incubation period while an equal amount is at the 13-14 day mark with the remaining 20-40% in the gulley between those two points?
Median time I had seen to symptom onset was 5 days.
I haven't seen really any that stretch out to that 14 day mark or anything close. Last I talked to the infectious disease guy here that I know a little, he said they're thinking once you hit that 10 day mark with no symptoms you're ok, but can't confirm. [Reply]
Originally Posted by TLO:
The majority of our city council members have the combined IQ of JakeE after someone hit him in the head with a coconut 8 times.
Lmao. JakeF is incredibly dumb. I would bet he ate lead paint chips for breakfast lunch and dinner when he was a kid. [Reply]
