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 Marcellus:
I think some outliers like Italy and that rest home in Washington freaked people the **** out and bunch of infectious disease specialist who have been waiting their whole career for "the big one" jumped in and started a snowball effect with their doomsday models.
This turned into a "better safe than sorry" mantra which frankly isn't justification for what we have done to the global economy. At least it sure doesn't look that way right now.
That's a ridiculous statement to make. Even if deaths would have never reached the levels predicted wout social distancing can you imagine how many people would get sick if the social distancing was not put into practice? The healthcare system would more than likely collapse.
Why don't you let the experts handle this and stick to your field instead of acting like medical experts wanted this to happen in order to further their career? [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
Just an idea someone floated?
It has the support of high-ranking federal public health officials who believe the league can safely operate amid the*coronavirus pandemic, sources told ESPN.
Has the support of MLB and Players Union.
You can all hide in the corner. These guys will be taking the field in 6-8 weeks.
So, you’re going on record with every MLB team will all be playing in Arizona by early June? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I think some outliers like Italy and that rest home in Washington freaked people the **** out and bunch of infectious disease specialist who have been waiting their whole career for "the big one" jumped in and started a snowball effect with their doomsday models.
This turned into a "better safe than sorry" mantra which frankly isn't justification for what we have done to the global economy. At least it sure doesn't look that way right now.
It's been painful for sure. That being said, I think it's a somewhat good test run for more lethal pandemics. I was listening to Sam Harris (who has been really strident in arguments for greater response and people not taking this seriously enough), and he had an epidemiologist on there. Sam was really concerned at this epidemiologist wasn't concerned horribly concerned about COVID-19. The epidemiologist explained that when he gets worried about pandemics, he's thinking of viruses with a 50%+ mortality rate (which are out there) mutating to become highly infectious and hard to contain.
So, to him, COVID was scary, but it wasn't scary in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take measure to combat it, and we definitely need to get our systems in place for when a "big one" comes. That, to me, all starts with MUCH better testing and detection capability. I still don't think we have actual good data on this thing due to our shitty testing capability (especially in states like Arkansas). [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
I'm complaining because it was lazy and ineffective decision-making that was obvious in real-time.
This idea that "well nobody could've expected them to be off by that much" is folly. Yes, that could absolutely have been predicted and WAS. Moreover, instead of doubling down on their decisions based on 'evidence' that was proven faulty in real time, they could've adjusted to it.
I'm not criticizing outcomes, I'm criticizing process. There is no other discipline but politics that would try to defend how this was handled. It was a horrid approach.
Just chalking anything up to an 'abundance of caution' and excusing a wretched approach simply shouldn't fly. Somehow our response is immune to any kind of analysis? Suddenly any benefit, no matter how small, is worth any cost? That's absurd.
Shit, we still don't know if some of these measures were counterproductive because of the number of levers we tried to pull at the same time. There's still evidence to suggest that closing schools down provides little impact on spread but could make impacts worse.
Again - these outcomes weren't hard to predict at all but everyone was busy shouting over anyone who said "hey, maybe there are a dozen reasons we aren't Italy and that Imperial College model sure looks shaky as shit..." because they were scared and irrational.
An abundance of caution is done absolutely all the time in medicine. It's the foundation of halting the spread of disease.
Have a patient with suspected TB on the floor and they're immediately moved to negative pressure isolation and everyone that comes in contact with them is wearing masks, goggles, gloves, gowns, and booties.
Now, imagine you have thousands of patients with suspected TB, but you can't identify them quickly, and they've been interacting with thousands of other people. You don't have time to parse information to identify a perfect model, because even the most prominent statisticians in the country will admit and have continually said that building these models is incredibly hard. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
That's a ridiculous statement to make. Even if deaths would have never reached the levels predicted wout social distancing can you imagine how many people would get sick if the social distancing was not put into practice? The healthcare system would more than likely collapse.
What don't you let the experts handle this and stick to your field instead of acting like medical experts wanted this to happen in order to further their career?
I am sorry if my posts on a message board that have no impact on what happens somehow causes you distress. Its clear in your posting on this topic that unless you are all doom and gloom you don't agree with it. It's also clear you struggle with comprehension as I never stated anything about furthering anyone's career. You obviously have never dealt with people who's job is to be a subject matter expert on something that involves any level of risk and what their tendencies are.
The reality is there was a possible alternative reaction and outcome and its not settled nor will it likely ever be, which one is going to have the worst end result. Its not settled science. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
Can you imagine if that had taken hold in early January and the NFL postseason was cancelled. Holy shit.
The feeling after those playoff Arrowhead games after years of failure are something ill never forget, especially seeing the "run" live and the AFC championship as a whole. "Shudders" [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
I think some outliers like Italy and that rest home in Washington freaked people the **** out and bunch of infectious disease specialist who have been waiting their whole career for "the big one" jumped in and started a snowball effect with their doomsday models.
This turned into a "better safe than sorry" mantra which frankly isn't justification for what we have done to the global economy. At least it sure doesn't look that way right now.
Better safe than sorry is actually a very smart way of thinking when it comes to pandemics.
Could the global economic impact end up being less than predicted as well Economist are in the same world are Virologist when it comes to educated guessing . [Reply]
Originally Posted by NewChief:
I get that suspension of social services (how did we get to the point where a school is primary provider of social services) might be a case of the cure doing more harm than the disease.... but I have ZERO understanding how keeping schools open could be justified if you're closing all these other gathering places.
You're talking about assemblies of up to 5000+ people in a confined area for 8 hours a day, many of whom have horrible hygiene. I mean, if schools don't contribute to spread, then it would seem that NO public gatherings/places would contribute to spread. I"ve also seen the talking point of closing schools doesn't help (our governor, Asa, used it quite a bit to justify his "late" decision to close the schools here)., but I guess I just don't understand it.
QFMFT
Hell, around here you can bet at one time or another your kid will come home from school with head lice and you're lucky if it only happens one time a year. I can only imagine what would happen if the schools stayed in session during all this. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
Better safe than sorry is actually a very smart way of thinking when it comes to pandemics.
Could the global economic impact end up being less than predicted as well Economist are in the same world are Virologist when it comes to educated guessing .
Let's hope. The market seems to be trending the right way as we find out the pandemic isnt nearly as bad as feared. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NewChief:
It's been painful for sure. That being said, I think it's a somewhat good test run for more lethal pandemics. I was listening to Sam Harris (who has been really strident in arguments for greater response and people not taking this seriously enough), and he had an epidemiologist on there. Sam was really concerned at this epidemiologist wasn't concerned horribly concerned about COVID-19. The epidemiologist explained that when he gets worried about pandemics, he's thinking of viruses with a 50%+ mortality rate (which are out there) mutating to become highly infectious and hard to contain.
So, to him, COVID was scary, but it wasn't scary in the grand scheme of things. It doesn't mean we shouldn't take measure to combat it, and we definitely need to get our systems in place for when a "big one" comes. That, to me, all starts with MUCH better testing and detection capability. I still don't think we have actual good data on this thing due to our shitty testing capability (especially in states like Arkansas).
MERS had a mortality rate of 35% , there are other factors to worry about when it comes to pandemics death rate is not the only part. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
In some way MLB will be playing in June. Absolutely.
On that, I could agree(I sure hope that’s the case)the part I think is far fetched is getting everyone to Arizona to play everyday in the 112 degree heat on top of al the other logistic issues. Hopefully, we’re so far along by June things can start to resume as normal. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NewChief:
I get that suspension of social services (how did we get to the point where a school is primary provider of social services) might be a case of the cure doing more harm than the disease.... but I have ZERO understanding how keeping schools open could be justified if you're closing all these other gathering places.
You're talking about assemblies of up to 5000+ people in a confined area for 8 hours a day, many of whom have horrible hygiene. I mean, if schools don't contribute to spread, then it would seem that NO public gatherings/places would contribute to spread. I"ve also seen the talking point of closing schools doesn't help (our governor, Asa, used it quite a bit to justify his "late" decision to close the schools here)., but I guess I just don't understand it.
It's been presented a couple times on this thread (I don't expect anyone to go back and find it in this behemoth).
But the suggestion is that kids aren't very good carriers at all for this particular disease (counterintuitive as that may be) and the suggestion is because they don't have close, sustained contacts with a lot of adults while in school (just look at teacher/student ratios) and that their bodies do a lot to keep this hammered back at the gates rather than running through their systems. Moreover, that through effectively turning them into shut-ins with their parents, in the event the disease gets into the home somehow, you actually create a harsher 'wildfire' within the home that creates worse health outcomes to those that are in it.
I agree that on its face, the idea of closing the schools does seem pretty simple and the reasons straightforward. It's the easy, politically expedient answer. But the early evidence (which flamed out when ALL schools closed and you couldn't get useful data) suggested that there were reasons that it simply wasn't the case.
A one size fits all approach here wrecked a myriad of opportunities to actually learn something about what our national response should be moving forward. [Reply]