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.”
The approach to shutting everything down should definitely have been handled different. Most places aren't New York, which accounts for 23780 of the 63861 (37%) deaths. They most certainly should have SIP orders for NY.
Missouri, OTOH, was one of the last states to do the SIP orders, so you would expect to have a high amount of cases and deaths. Thankfully, that is not at all what is happening. Missouri as of yesterday had reported a total of 343 deaths or 0.5% of the total of all deaths in the US and there are dozens of states just like this. Shutting down all these states is completely pointless. We are not all crammed together like NYC. I think once things open back up we may see a slight increase in cases/deaths, but it won't be significant. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
The approach to shutting everything down should definitely have been handled different. Most places aren't New York, which accounts for 23780 of the 63861 (37%) deaths. They most certainly should have SIP orders for NY.
Missouri, OTOH, was one of the last states to do the SIP orders, so you would expect to have a high amount of cases and deaths. Thankfully, that is not at all what is happening. Missouri as of yesterday had reported a total of 343 deaths or 0.5% of the total of all deaths in the US and there are dozens of states just like this. Shutting down all these states is completely pointless. We are not all crammed together like NYC. I think once things open back up we may see a slight increase in cases/deaths, but it won't be significant.
Agreed. Unfortunately the media will blow any increases out of proportion while continuing to downplay any good news, of which there has been a lot lately. [Reply]
Originally Posted by jerryaldini:
Agreed. Unfortunately the media will blow any increases out of proportion while continuing to downplay any good news, of which there has been a lot lately.
I was on the close it down train, but when you look at the numbers and see that like 65% of all the deaths in the US are in 10 states, then it all seems a bit over blown. [Reply]
Originally Posted by dlphg9:
I was on the close it down train, but when you look at the numbers and see that like 65% of all the deaths in the US are in 10 states, then it all seems a bit over blown.
It's kind of where all the people are. In those states. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I think that a sizable portion of people here are awake to the situation and are taking it seriously. There is an extremely vocal minority that has been downplaying since Day 1, and a smaller and completely psychotic minority on here that is claiming it is a complete hoax.
Or how about people being realistic and recognizing that the “maintain stringent social distancing until there is a vaccine” approach is laughably stupid/naive/unrealistic because there will likely not be an effective/scalable vaccine for a very long time or ever.
If there is no effective/scalable vaccine for ten years are you willing to support a continued social distancing mitigation strategy of no mass crowd events, full capacity restaurants or “non essential” retail establishments?
Explain why you think an effective vaccine that is scalable to provide to millions of people is a more realistic short term strategy than herd immunity. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
Or how about people being realistic and recognizing that the “maintain stringent social distancing until there is a vaccine” approach is laughably stupid/naive/unrealistic because there will likely not be an effective/scalable vaccine for a very long time or ever.
If there is no effective/scalable vaccine for ten years are you willing to support a continued social distancing mitigation strategy of no mass crowd events, full capacity restaurants or “non essential” retail establishments?
Explain why you think an effective vaccine that is scalable to provide to millions of people is a more realistic short term strategy than herd immunity.
Herd immunity isn’t a realistic option for all virus , do we know enough about this virus to make that call maybe yes maybe no, is 3 months in enough time to make that determination could be but when lives are at risk it is a hard call to make.
I also understand staying shut in for 2 years is not an option so we have to find a strategy that is best for both lives and jobs , ripping the band aid off doesn’t sound like that is the plan that would be most effective for that at this point [Reply]
Poll after poll is finding Americans overwhelming support the stay at home orders and fear lifting too early.
One from the Kaiser Family Foundation asked adults nationwide whether shelter-in-place orders were “worth it” or “causing more harm than good.” An overwhelming 80 percent said they were worth it.
In the Economist poll, the share of Republican voters who believed social distancing could be ended and businesses reopened now or within the next two weeks was much bigger than the Democratic figure, but both numbers were modest: 26 percent of Republicans and just 6 percent of Democrats.
Originally Posted by Loneiguana:
Poll after poll is finding Americans overwhelming support the stay at home orders and fear lifting too early.
One from the Kaiser Family Foundation asked adults nationwide whether shelter-in-place orders were “worth it” or “causing more harm than good.” An overwhelming 80 percent said they were worth it.
In the Economist poll, the share of Republican voters who believed social distancing could be ended and businesses reopened now or within the next two weeks was much bigger than the Democratic figure, but both numbers were modest: 26 percent of Republicans and just 6 percent of Democrats.
We're getting protesters protesting a planned anti-lockdown protest today. I think both sides are just looking for a reason to enjoy a nice spring day outside. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
I is really hard to people that understand how the mitigation efforts has/are working to change course and try a plan that has unknown results.
I would be like the chiefs completely changing their strategy after winning the superbowl, could it still be effective sure but if it ain't broke .
I also understand it is not sustainable though.
You are completely contradicting yourself lol. It's ok though. You're Canadian and cant help it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88:
Or how about people being realistic and recognizing that the “maintain stringent social distancing until there is a vaccine” approach is laughably stupid/naive/unrealistic because there will likely not be an effective/scalable vaccine for a very long time or ever.
If there is no effective/scalable vaccine for ten years are you willing to support a continued social distancing mitigation strategy of no mass crowd events, full capacity restaurants or “non essential” retail establishments?
Explain why you think an effective vaccine that is scalable to provide to millions of people is a more realistic short term strategy than herd immunity.
Because every virus has a basic reproduction number and if you can lower than number to less than one through mitigation efforts, it will die out. If you do that, you don't need to reach herd immunity nor do you need a vaccine.
You put out the main fire through the initial measures, develop a system of testing and contact tracing, and slowly reopen with the flexibility to quickly address outbreaks thereafter while your newer distancing measures keep the reproduction number low enough to ensure the virus decreases in prevalence. [Reply]