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.”
I haven’t followed too closely lately. What’s the plan when we open up and in 2-4 weeks after it blows up again, close it back down or just let nature take its course but save the rich? [Reply]
Originally Posted by RustShack:
I haven’t followed too closely lately. What’s the plan when we open up and in 2-4 weeks after it blows up again, close it back down or just let nature take its course but save the rich?
it isn't going to blow up again. We are bored of it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RustShack:
I haven’t followed too closely lately. What’s the plan when we open up and in 2-4 weeks after it blows up again, close it back down or just let nature take its course but save the rich?
I like rich people better than poor people so definitely save the rich
Originally Posted by AustinChief:
Wtf are you talking about? We are talking about what numbers show whether or not Texas's reopening is causing a spike in Covid cases. The raw number of cases confirmed by testing is not a good indicator because of the increase in testing. Deaths in the other hand(given a lag time) are a much better indicator.
Your misleading fear mongering comment has zero to do with what we were discussing. If you choose to defend your comment please provide specific data and research on how many people as a percentage have proven permanent damage due to Covid-19. Make sure it is broken down by age please. Not sure how much I'm supposed to care about a 98 year old with "permanent" damage.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
So explain how deaths is more accurate when all the people that claim things aren’t as serious as portrayed use the excuse that deaths are over and misreported as being due to Covid19? [Reply]
Originally Posted by AustinChief:
Wtf are you talking about? We are talking about what numbers show whether or not Texas's reopening is causing a spike in Covid cases. The raw number of cases confirmed by testing is not a good indicator because of the increase in testing. Deaths in the other hand(given a lag time) are a much better indicator.
Your misleading fear mongering comment has zero to do with what we were discussing. If you choose to defend your comment please provide specific data and research on how many people as a percentage have proven permanent damage due to Covid-19. Make sure it is broken down by age please. Not sure how much I'm supposed to care about a 98 year old with "permanent" damage.
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk
It's a worthwhile question with muddy data at this point. Most of the analysis are cohort studies from patients that have been hospitalized, and thus have severe disease. Also, patients can present with multiple comorbidities.
As one would expect, older patients tend to have more severe effects, but it's also early to assume permanent dysfunction. However, there are markers of damage in a number of bodily systems
Cardiac injury in Wuhan: 19.7% of hospitalized patients had elevated cardiac enzymes indicative of myocardial damage. Those patients were older (mean age 74) than those without (60). Roughly half of patients with cardiac injury survived.
Neurological manifestations in Wuhan: Approximately 36% of admitted patients were found to have some degree of CNS, skeletal, or PNS manifestation. Again, severity of illness and age were correlated more strongly with the likelihood of these issues. As this is a broad constellation of issues, it's important to delineate specific examples: acute cerebrovascular disease, like an ischemic stroke, happened in 2.8% of patients, whereas skeletal muscle injury happened in around 11% of patients, and alterations in taste and smell were closer to 5-6%
SARS and MERS caused permanent lung damage in around 1/3 of cases. It's hard to know exact numbers for COVID-19 at this point, but a substantial number of discharged patients showed indications of lung damage on CT.
94% (66/70) of patients who were discharged from hospital at the end of the study still had mild to substantial residual lung abnormalities on their last CT scans. The main pattern of those lung abnormalities was ground-glass opacity. A most recent publication reported 4 discharged cases who had positive SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR results again 5-13 days after discharging(22). Thus, follow-up monitoring of patients might still be necessary
GGOs can resolve and they can be indicative of long-term damage to the alveoli. It's too soon to know.
Of course, more severe patients develop ARDS, and although many survive, ARDS in ICU patients leads to longterm cognitive impairment approximately 1/5th of the time (Paywalled for you, most likely: https://journals.lww.com/ccmjournal/...s__Risk.8.aspx)
Clotting Disorders:
Patients with more severe disease will be more likely to present with a coagulopathy. Around 30% of hospitalized patients in France were found to have a PE if they weren't in ICU, compared to 72% of those who were (sample sizes were low; n=32 for ICU, n=72 for not, but the differences are enough for a p < 0.001) Those that have a DVT, PE, or stroke will need to remain on anticoagulant therapy for at least six months afterwards, which carries its own burdens and risks.
As for the ultimate breakdown on all subgroup analyses, that will take time, but it is clear that this is a disease that attacks multiple organ systems, often through coagulopathies. As one would expect with any other disease, the older and sicker you are, the worse your prognosis, but this is not merely an issue affecting the elderly. [Reply]
Not really. They're mixing several different antibody studies, some of them using older tests with false positive rates above 50%, with newer, more specific tests, and flu counts are always estimated, which is why they are often 6-10 times higher than reported flu deaths, which does precisely the opposite of what the author claims.
A study posted this week in Spain, which is one of the hardest hit countries in Europe, showed a total seroprevalance of 5% with no region higher than 14%. This extrapolated to a total IFR of 0.7%, seven times higher than the flu.
*Note that I backdated deaths to the point where the study began, so in reality the IFR is likely higher. Many other estimates have it around 1.15%* [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
Not really. They're mixing several different antibody studies, some of them using older tests with false positive rates above 50%, with newer, more specific tests, and flu counts are always estimated, which is why they are often 6-10 times higher than reported flu deaths, which does precisely the opposite of what the author claims.
A study posted this week in Spain, which is one of the hardest hit countries in Europe, showed a total seroprevalance of 5% with no region higher than 14%. This extrapolated to a total IFR of 0.7%, seven times higher than the flu.
Are the antibody tests today fairly accurate? [Reply]
Originally Posted by ghak99:
So the Governor himself issued regulations restricting interstate travel enforced via fines paid to the state? Do you know what law he used to back this restriction?
I hope someone jumped all over this.
It was about people coming into the state for recreation. It required those that came into the state to notify the Arkansas Department of Health and for them to isolate/quarantine for 14 days. No beyond that I don't know. This stuff was talked about on the news though. I am sure that this happened in a lot of other places across the country.
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Do you have the ability to read a story and not see partisanship?
I read the article and didn't see any politics mentioned one way or the other. But then again think about who you are talking too. Why read something that may go against your predetermined conclusion when you can use a site (that I have never heard of) as a reason not to read it? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
Do you have the ability to read a story and not see partisanship?
That site is notorious for fake news and no surprise mins after you posting it Hamas shot it down. Quit posting fake shit you're a mod you should know better. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jdubya:
Are the antibody tests today fairly accurate?
Depends on the test. Most of the early tests (like the ones used on the Boston and Santa Clara examples listed in Bowser's link) had extremely poor specificity which rendered them a coinflip at best and led to a vast overestimation of the number of infections and a complete misrepresentation of the fatality rate (claiming it was much lower than reality).
Some of the newer tests that have been verified by outside parties have much better specificity levels, but it needs to be above 99.5% to have clinical utility in this environment. [Reply]
