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 Chief Roundup:
Thought Missouri had a lock down order or shelter in place order.
Sent from my SM-G973U1 using Tapatalk
SIP doesn't mean you cant leave or go do things. It means they recommend you stay home. The business closings made it generally not worthwhile to leave home. There was no actual law or hard and fast rule though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
I feel "almost certain" that I would prefer Fauci or any other official to reach 100% certainty before they start throwing out statements like this.
He's almost certainly right though. With the current rates (and not even an explosion) the deaths will pile up even if this thing steadily trails off. Theyre bound to find ones they missed. And don't forget the suicides. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
I feel "almost certain" that I would prefer Fauci or any other official to reach 100% certainty before they start throwing out statements like this.
Meanwhile Dr. Birx is arguing with the CDC about the way things are being tracked. I don't think she is advocating one way or the other but I do know she is saying that there are cases of Covid being listed as cause when it isn't. She and Fauci could both be right.
But yes, to come out without any solid data and say this without very near certainty is hazardous. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
He was asked his opinion and he gave it. Not a big deal to me.
Originally Posted by loochy:
He's almost certainly right though. With the current rates (and not even an explosion) the deaths will pile up even if this thing steadily trails off.
The problem is when stories come out from individuals, be it Dr. Birx or others that there are deaths being counted as Covid when they shouldn't be people want to down play that with "well, we aren't counting some that should be so..."
The two are not mutually exclusive. There are most likely deaths that haven't been counted that should have but it is becoming very evident that there are cases being counted that shouldn't have.
So my problem with Fauci's statement is he takes the position that the 80,000 is accurate to begin with then says it is probably higher. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
On Thursday, Colorado reported 1,091 coronavirus deaths under its prior method. But on Friday, the state clarified that 878 people have died as a direct result of COVID-19 infection as of May 9, while another 272 had tested positive but died of other causes as of Friday.
Now, are there cases not being counted that should be? I would suspect so. But again, the 2 are not mutually exclusive. [Reply]
Originally Posted by loochy:
He's almost certainly right though. With the current rates (and not even an explosion) the deaths will pile up even if this thing steadily trails off. Theyre bound to find ones they missed. And don't forget the suicides.
My point was someone in his position with his voice during this crisis needs to be careful with what he says. When he says "I think" or "almost certainly", the people hanging on his words for hope and guidance are going to run with it like it's written in stone what he thinks, and that could end up being problematic. Look at Neil Ferguson, for example (extreme comparison, but still). [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Then look at underlying increases in mortality rates, subtract COVID deaths, and look at the surplus, which is still astounding. He's correct.
To your point I would love to see a complete breakdown of deaths in this country since the first of the year. That would be a mammoth undertaking to get all those numbers and data together, but I feel it would be quite interesting to see how it all shook out. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
My point was someone in his position with his voice during this crisis needs to be careful with what he says. When he says "I think" or "almost certainly", the people hanging on his words for hope and guidance are going to run with it like it's written in stone what he thinks, and that could end up being problematic. Look at Neil Ferguson, for example (extreme comparison, but still).
That's the problem of people not understanding. That's why studies have confidence intervals and not 100% guarantees. He's saying because he's confident, but not dogmatic.
He's also in a difficult position. People can't digest more than 15 second soundbytes; is it really fair to expect him to explain the rationale behind scientific uncertainty in necessary detail?
But that aside, what problems are going to arise from Fauci saying the death toll is most likely undercounted? It's pretty obvious that a substantial portion of the population isn't listening to consensus epidemiological advice anyway, even when it's been proven to work elsewhere. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jaa1025:
The death count is being greatly overstated. Plus, they ended the flu season a month and a half early this year to add those deaths to the COVID count.
Interesting facts.
I'm excited to hear if you have any hot takes on the Loch Ness monster? [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
The problem is when stories come out from individuals, be it Dr. Birx or others that there are deaths being counted as Covid when they shouldn't be people want to down play that with "well, we aren't counting some that should be so..."
The two are not mutually exclusive. There are most likely deaths that haven't been counted that should have but it is becoming very evident that there are cases being counted that shouldn't have.
So my problem with Fauci's statement is he takes the position that the 80,000 is accurate to begin with then says it is probably higher.
Okay but I don't think the opinion that deaths maybe a little bit higher is going to change anything do you? It's interesting to read but overall it's just not like he is calling for reopening of society to be slowed down due to this. So to me it is not a big deal at all. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
To your point I would love to see a complete breakdown of deaths in this country since the first of the year. That would be a mammoth undertaking to get all those numbers and data together, but I feel it would be quite interesting to see how it all shook out.
The NYT did an excellent breakdown of increases in baseline mortality in several areas, including New York City, Lombardy, and other cities. Even when you subtract both definite and probable COVID cases, you end up with a sizable increase of baseline mortality that is not explained by background factors alone.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
That's the problem of people not understanding. That's why studies have confidence intervals and not 100% guarantees. He's saying because he's confident, but not dogmatic.
He's also in a difficult position. People can't digest more than 15 second soundbytes; is it really fair to expect him to explain the rationale behind scientific uncertainty in necessary detail?
But that aside, what problems are going to arise from Fauci saying the death toll is most likely undercounted? It's pretty obvious that a substantial portion of the population isn't listening to consensus epidemiological advice anyway, even when it's been proven to work elsewhere.
Weren't you just arguing the opposite [elsewhere] in reference to [someone] expressing optimism about some potential usefulness of a drug?
I guess I need to be educated on where people are expected to be smarter and realize that smart people don't have time to explain the caveats and shortcomings of their hypotheses and musings, and when people need to realize that people aren't smart so they need to be very clear and pedantic and assured in their verbiage. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Baby Lee:
Weren't you just arguing the opposite in reference to [someone] expressing optimism about some potential usefulness of a drug?
I guess I need to be educated on where people are expected to be smarter and realize that smart people don't have time to explain the caveats and shortcomings of their hypotheses and musings, and when people need to realize that people aren't smart so they need to be very clear and pedantic and assured in their verbiage.
Here's a pretty good example to go by: Fauci doesn't have time to discuss the pratfalls of a clinical trial in a press conference in sufficient detail to seal every corner and cover every speck, which is why he uses the phrasing that he does, like "confident" vs. "within the 95% confidence interval," and "anecdotal" vs. "an observational trial with no control group or randomization process."
On a message board, I have more time to discuss things in detail that wouldn't be covered in a press conference. [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Okay but I don't think the opinion that deaths maybe a little bit higher is going to change anything do you? It's interesting to read but overall it's just not like he is calling for reopening of society to be slowed down due to this. So to me it is not a big deal at all.
Well that's good for you. The media on the other hand loves to run with this kind of shit. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Here's a pretty good example to go by: Fauci doesn't have time to discuss the pratfalls of a clinical trial in a press conference in sufficient detail to seal every corner and cover every speck, which is why he uses the phrasing that he does, like "confident" vs. "within the 95% confidence interval," and "anecdotal" vs. "an observational trial with no control group or randomization process."
On a message board, I have more time to discuss things in detail that wouldn't be covered in a press conference.
1. pitfalls.
2. maybe give more individuals than the good doctor the benefit of the presumption of best intent. [Reply]