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:
Yeah, back to your pedantic bullshit. So show us all where they say masks prevent you from getting Covid. It should be rather easy for you. Cause I haven't seen a single medical expert say it does. In fact I have seen tons stress just the opposite.
OMFG. Pete.
Please stop.
Your posts are literally PAINFUL to read.
This is easy stuff and I am sure you understand this.
First, "help prevent" =/= "prevent." You, yourself, have used "gray area" in the past. Hopefully you can grasp this concept.
Second, masks offer some protection.
The protection is the same BOTH WAYS when it comes to inhaling/exhaling DROPLETS containing the virus.
The masks are not a magical one way portal which somehow stops the droplets form getting out but not getting in.
When you wear a mask, SOME droplets coming from you just breathing are stopped by the mask. This mitigates the spread of the virus. Hopefully you know that "mitigates" is not the same as "stops."
It works the SAME way when you breathe in.
The difference comes with eyes. You don't breathe out droplets from your eyes. The mask doesn't cover the eyes. Hence it helps MORE when it comes to protecting people from your breathing and doesn't help ANY when existing droplets can land in your eyes.
This is why the masks are more effective at stopping the spread from you to others than protecting you. They still HELP do both. They just help one more than the other.
This is easy stuff and I am sure you understand this.
First, "help prevent" =/= "prevent." You, yourself, have used "gray area" in the past. Hopefully you can grasp this concept.
Second, masks offer some protection.
The protection is the same BOTH WAYS when it comes to inhaling/exhaling DROPLETS containing the virus.
The masks are not a magical one way portal which somehow stops the droplets form getting out but not getting in.
When you wear a mask, SOME droplets coming from you just breathing are stopped by the mask. This mitigates the spread of the virus. Hopefully you know that "mitigates" is not the same as "stops."
It works the SAME way when you breathe in.
The difference comes with eyes. You don't breathe out droplets from your eyes. The mask doesn't cover the eyes. Hence it helps MORE when it comes to protecting people from your breathing and doesn't help ANY when existing droplets can land in your eyes.
This is why the masks are more effective at stopping the spread from you to others than protecting you. They still HELP do both. They just help one more than the other.
Jesus ****ing Christ, man.
Yea JFC man!!! Look at me an my mask that protected me!! Watch as I block all those virus particles that are now living on the outside of my mask that I won't take off for another hour or two that is literally an inch or less than away from my eyes. Watch as I use my hand to adjust my mask or no, no, wait for it, as I walk out to my car grab my particle soaked mask with my bare hand and toss it into my car or maybe the trash but as many do, just on the ground. Then before I sanitize a ****ing thing I scratch my nose or rub my eyes.
My mask soaked up the nasty particles from those infected people like a champ....sorta. Then I grabbed my mask and spread them all over my face.
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Yea JFC man!!! Look at me an my mask that protected me!! Watch as I block all those virus particles that are now living on the outside of my mask that I won't take off for another hour or two that is literally an inch or less than away from my eyes. Watch as I use my hand to adjust my mask or no, no, wait for it, as I walk out to my car grab my particle soaked mask with my bare hand and toss it into my car or maybe the trash but as many do, just on the ground. Then before I sanitize a ****ing thing I scratch my nose or rub my eyes.
My mask soaked up the nasty particles. Then I grabbed my mask and spread them all over my face.
Originally Posted by wazu:
Not sure what point you are trying to make. That is still better protected than no mask.
Is it? That was the subject of an article I posted yesterday. That very question. If you wore the mask properly, didn't spent more than a couple of minutes close to an infected person, never touched the mask until you took it off and then sanatized your hand before you touched anything else it would help.
Most likely people grab their mask multiple times as they wear it and or take it off and never think twice about washing their hand(s) before touching their face or anything so, yeah, the mask itself when worn properly might help. Til the person wearing it fucks it all up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
Not sure what point you are trying to make. That is still better protected than no mask.
Sorry, to finish my point the article basically stated that is most cases you are just as safe without a mask than with if your goal is to prevent getting the virus. If your goal is to prevent spreading it because you think you have it then that is what most experts are saying is the most effective use for the mask. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Mr_Tomahawk:
Just an update: my mother-in-laws test came back negative, so that's good....
SWEET!!!!
On that similar but separate note, if you do not have a DNR order please get one. MY FIL's, Dad who is his 80's and has been battling cancer coded this morning. There wasn't a DNR order so they brought him back but now they fear they did more damage to him doing that.
My FIL is a mess because he thought there was one and was going to let him go because he thinks that's what his Dad wanted. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Yea JFC man!!! Look at me an my mask that protected me!! Watch as I block all those virus particles that are now living on the outside of my mask that I won't take off for another hour or two that is literally an inch or less than away from my eyes. Watch as I use my hand to adjust my mask or no, no, wait for it, as I walk out to my car grab my particle soaked mask with my bare hand and toss it into my car or maybe the trash but as many do, just on the ground. Then before I sanitize a ****ing thing I scratch my nose or rub my eyes.
My mask soaked up the nasty particles from those infected people like a champ....sorta. Then I grabbed my mask and spread them all over my face.
Well that makes a little more sense. Your stance was never that masks magically stop the droplets one way but not the other or not that the masks do not offer any protection at all.
The entire time, your argument was that people don't use the masks correctly. This can potentially lead to the worst case scenario you described. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Pants:
Well that makes a little more sense. Your stance was never that masks magically stop the droplets one way but not the other or not that the masks do not offer any protection at all.
The entire time, your argument was that people don't use the masks correctly. This can potentially lead to the worst case scenario you described.
Perhaps I was allowing myself to get caught up in a pedantic part of the argument, I agree. My stance was masks are not good at prevention. I cited articles that stated in large part that the loose fittings and materials in general along with improper use shall we say, did not prevent much more than large droplets which is why they are generally for not spreading as opposed to preventing. People jumped on the minute detail of stopping particular droplets and I went along as opposed to pointing out that stopping the droplets was the least of the problem. Agreed there.
You're a good man, Pants.......stay golden [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
My mask soaked up the nasty particles from those infected people like a champ....sorta. Then I grabbed my mask and spread them all over my face.
By this same logic it is pointless to wear protective equipment when dealing with toxic chemicals because if you don’t wash your hands after removing and then touch your eyes you might go blind. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
It's not a dodge, it's a matter of truth. Yes, there are certain populations that have lower risks; it doesn't make them immune to catching or spreading the disease, and given that most other populations have a substantially higher risk, the end result of that will result in more hospitalizations and more deaths.
Ninety percent of people with polio are asymptomatic. It doesn't mean that you shouldn't vaccinate everyone.
This isn't true though, a very small % of the population are at a substantially high risk from this. We know this from the number of known case+unknown cases compared to deaths. [Reply]
