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 RaidersOftheCellar:
Months ago, the CDC admitted there was “likely a substantial undercount of all SARS-CoV-2 infections among fully vaccinated persons.” This was because they didn’t include those who only had one shot or count those who had their second shot 5-10 days earlier. But instead of trying to determine the real number, they announced they were going to stop counting cases among the vaccinated unless they were hospitalized or died.
If the CDC knew that there was a serious underestimate of the real numbers, and now they’ve stopped counting and have no idea how many vaccinated people are infected, how can they say that it’s the unvaccinated who are spreading disease?
The definition of "vaccinated" is two weeks after the final shot. That's when the full benefit is realized, and that also eliminates the possibility that you were infected before you got the first shot since it takes 10 to 14 days to show up. So the people you described were not vaccinated people who got covid. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
The definition of "vaccinated" is two weeks after the final shot. That's when the full benefit is realized, and that also eliminates the possibility that you were infected before you got the first shot since it takes 10 to 14 days to show up. So the people you described were not vaccinated people who got covid.
Error on my part.
But it was still admitted by the CDC that there was a substantial undercount among the fully vaccinated. And then they stopped counting. Thus making it difficult to determine who is actually spreading it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Error on my part.
But it was still admitted by the CDC that there was a substantial undercount among the fully vaccinated. And then they stopped counting. Thus making it difficult to determine who is actually spreading it.
Vaccinated people with COVID seems to be less of an issue than unvaccinated people getting COVID since they seem to be getting less severe disease/death so even if they are spreading it , if it spread to other vaccinated people it is less of an problem I think even you can identify where the issue lies. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
Vaccinated people with COVID seems to be less of an issue than unvaccinated people getting COVID since they seem to be getting less severe disease/death so even if they are spreading it , if it spread to other vaccinated people it is less of an problem I think even you can identify where the issue lies.
It also "seems" that only 6,000 or so have died after getting a vaccine, and yet a CDC whistleblower gave sworn testimony that 45,000 died within 3 days of their shot, and many more within 1-2 weeks.
There are plenty of ways to manipulate numbers to suit your agenda. [Reply]
Originally Posted by loochy:
Yes, that 1% makes a huge difference. Remember, ICUs are not large, so just a small influx of patients can overrun one. I'd say they range anywhere from 5 to 40 beds. When you hear that "ICUs are full", that doesn't mean everyone in town is sick, it means the ICU reached that smallish capacity.
The thing is that the ICUs are designed to always be somewhat near capacity (because it's incredibly expensive to have beds sitting empty). The forecasts for capacity were based on pre-covid days, so this is throwing a wrench into all of that forecasting. Previously, they'd just send overflow to the next nearest hospital, but they cant do that anymore because those ICUs are full too.
Now, the problem is where to put car crash victims or gunshot victims when the ICU is full of insulin-resistant fatties that could have taken a shot to stay out of that ICU.
In general, the problem doesn't effect a huge number of people, but when it's your turn and you accidentally chop your arm off with a band saw, you'll really be wishing those people took their shots.
Another issue from what I've seen first hand is staffing. ICU are generally. 2 pts to 1 nurse. So if you have a 70 bed ICU but only have enough nurses to take care of 50 of those beds the hospital will consider that full.
Nurses are leaving for different reasons. Some went to clinic settings or DRs office where they don't have to deal with COVID to the degree they do in the hospital. Others went to teach some retired if they could. Some have left to go travel as the money is insane. 3x the amount they would nornally make so they opted to cash in while they could. Its not this mass exodus but it's enough that it does effect how many pts a hospital can take. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
It also "seems" that only 6,000 or so have died after getting a vaccine, and yet a CDC whistleblower gave sworn testimony that 45,000 died within 3 days of their shot, and many more within 1-2 weeks.
There are plenty of ways to manipulate numbers to suit your agenda.
Why do you trust that guys numbers , he could be manipulating numbers to suit his agenda. Where did you get that 6000 number from ?
i still don't think you understand VAERS well well yet.
Between December 2020 and July 19th, 2021, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018% of doses) among people who got a vaccine, but this does not mean the vaccine caused these deaths. Doctors and safety monitors carefully review the details of each case to see if it might be linked to the vaccine. There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine. Since we now know how to correctly treat people who develop these blood clots, future deaths related to this very rare side effect can be prevented.
After careful review of the additional data, doctors have decided that there is no evidence at all that the vaccines contributed to the other patient deaths. Nonetheless, the CDC and FDA will continue to investigate every single report of death (and other adverse events) reported to VAERS. [Reply]
Originally Posted by louie aguiar:
This doesn't compute. It shows that for every 102k unvaccinated there are 417 deaths. This means that ~.4% of everyone that is unvaccinated will die. Currently about half the country is fully vaccinated leaving around 166 million people unvaccinated. If .4% of all unvaccinated are dying from this, that would be over 1.3M deaths which is over double the actual deaths from the beginning of the pandemic, most of those being when a vaccine wasn't available. What am I missing?
Yeah, fair point. I think the guy removed the vaccinated population from the number in the unvaccinated base, but he kept in all hospitalizations and deaths (including those from when vaccination wasn't an option). The more accurate comparison would be looking at the same time periods for both. [Reply]
Originally Posted by loochy:
Yes, that 1% makes a huge difference. Remember, ICUs are not large, so just a small influx of patients can overrun one. I'd say they range anywhere from 5 to 40 beds. When you hear that "ICUs are full", that doesn't mean everyone in town is sick, it means the ICU reached that smallish capacity.
The thing is that the ICUs are designed to always be somewhat near capacity (because it's incredibly expensive to have beds sitting empty). The forecasts for capacity were based on pre-covid days, so this is throwing a wrench into all of that forecasting. Previously, they'd just send overflow to the next nearest hospital, but they cant do that anymore because those ICUs are full too.
Now, the problem is where to put car crash victims or gunshot victims when the ICU is full of insulin-resistant fatties that could have taken a shot to stay out of that ICU.
In general, the problem doesn't effect a huge number of people, but when it's your turn and you accidentally chop your arm off with a band saw, you'll really be wishing those people took their shots.
As someone with virtually every member of their immediate family in a healthcare profession:
Originally Posted by Monticore:
Why do you trust that guys numbers , he could be manipulating numbers to suit his agenda. Where did you get that 6000 number from ?
i still don't think you understand VAERS well well yet.
Between December 2020 and July 19th, 2021, VAERS received 6,207 reports of death (0.0018% of doses) among people who got a vaccine, but this does not mean the vaccine caused these deaths. Doctors and safety monitors carefully review the details of each case to see if it might be linked to the vaccine. There are three deaths that appear to be linked to blood clots that occurred after people got the J&J vaccine. Since we now know how to correctly treat people who develop these blood clots, future deaths related to this very rare side effect can be prevented.
After careful review of the additional data, doctors have decided that there is no evidence at all that the vaccines contributed to the other patient deaths. Nonetheless, the CDC and FDA will continue to investigate every single report of death (and other adverse events) reported to VAERS.
I said died after getting a vaccine, not necessarily from the vaccine. The point was that there is reason to believe that the official number could be way, way off.
That said, the data does show a clear correlation. Reactions occurred primarily in the first 1-2 weeks and reports dropped significantly after that. If there were no association, you'd see a flat curve of reactions over 4 or 6 weeks. [Reply]
