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 staylor26:
But those things don’t stop 1.35 million people form dying every year, so we need to do more.
No more driving unless you’re going to work, taking your kids to school, etc.
I mean if you don’t agree you’re basically a piece of shit that’s ok with 1.35 million people still dying every year.
No, that's a weak argument born of desperation. It's nihilistic and the natural extension of it is that no amount of deaths matter because we can't prevent all of them.No one ever said the goal was risk elimination. The goal is risk mitigation.
We don't refuse to give drugs to people because 1/10,000 will have an allergic reaction, we analyze whether the therapy will do more good than harm. Cops pull cars over without taillights all the time because, in theory, they're a risk to themselves and other drivers. Doing so won't prevent all accidents, but the thought is to limit them. Seat belts sometimes kill people who would have otherwise survived accidents, but it doesn't mean they don't save lives on the balance. Sealing fuel tanks and mandating air bags don't save everyone, but they do save a lot of people. You'll never get the number down to zero, but you can lower it through interventions that are low consequence.
I can tell you firsthand I've experienced other interventions that are a hell of a lot more unpleasant than that. I don't particularly enjoy having poison pumped into my jugular vein every other week for three hours--I'm exhausted afterwards, my ribs and sternum ache for days, it literally hurts just to sit down, my esophageal tract is filled with sores, but I do it because the reward is worth the short-term suffering, and it's a hell of a lot more unpleasant than some of these impossibly minor sacrifices others refuse to make.
Do you have any idea how much fucking money a pharmaceutical company would make if they could reduce the infectiousness of this disease by half? Gilead is going to make billions on remdesivir when it only reduces hospitalization time by 1/3. Pharma companies made tens of billions of dollars on statins which increase quality of life years by 3 months for the average user. Three months.
Yet here's the thing: we already have such a treatment, and it costs pennies: wear a mask and don't gather in large groups. The same people who will bitch endlessly about using hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis when there is no evidence and very well known side effects refuse to put on a surgical or cloth mask that costs a few cents or dollars. That is such a small ask. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
No, that wasn't all. That was just part of it. If one doesn't get infected, one doesn't get sick. If one doesn't get sick, one doesn't got to the hospital. If one doesn't get sick, one can't die from it.
Originally Posted by Bowser:
So, "flattening the curve"?
Minimize infections, to minimize the chance of hospital overruns, to minimize deaths.
“If you look at the curves of outbreaks, you know, they go up big peaks, and then they come down. What we need to do is flatten that down,” he has said publicly. “That would have less people infected. That would, ultimately, have less deaths.” [Reply]
Hamas I didn’t say anything about not wearing a mask or hanging out in large groups.
Like I’ve said, I’m in the middle here. I’m willing to be reasonable.
This all started because PA thinks anybody that did their part in flattening the curve and now wants to move on with their lives (gym, haircut, etc.) within reasonable social distancing measures is a POS. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
Hamas I didn’t say anything about not wearing a mask or hanging out in large groups.
Like I’ve said, I’m in the middle here. I’m willing to be reasonable.
This all started because PA thinks anybody that did their part in flattening the curve and now wants to move on with their lives (gym, haircut, etc.) within reasonable social distancing measures is a POS.
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the sacrifices Michigan residents are making by following social distancing orders are well worth it when you consider it could save countless lives. [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
And depending on where you live and how far you take that, that’s fine.
Like I said, I live in Key West where the cases have become pretty much non-existent and a total of 3 people died all together despite a late lockdown.
I’m not going to wear a mask other than when I have to. If I lived somewhere else, I’d be a little more considerate.
The population of Key West is 25,000 and you have 99 cases? [Reply]
Originally Posted by staylor26:
And depending on where you live and how far you take that, that’s fine.
Like I said, I live in Key West where the cases have become pretty much non-existent and a total of 3 people died all together despite a late lockdown.
I’m not going to wear a mask other than when I have to. If I lived somewhere else, I’d be a little more considerate.
Lucky you. If I lived in Key West I wouldn't give a fuck either :-) [Reply]
Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy:
Not at all. I'm merely pointing out the sacrifices Michigan residents are making by following social distancing orders are well worth it when you consider it could save countless lives.
Keeping covid patients away from retirement homes would be a start. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bowser:
So, "flattening the curve"?
He will still argue with you but here.....
Originally Posted by :
Health officials take for granted that COVID-19 will continue to infect millions of people around the world over the coming weeks and months. However, as the outbreak in Italy shows, the rate at which a population becomes infected makes all the difference in whether there are enough hospital beds (and doctors, and resources) to treat the sick.
In epidemiology, the idea of slowing a virus' spread so that fewer people need to seek treatment at any given time is known as "flattening the curve." It explains why so many countries are implementing "social distancing" guidelines — including a "shelter in place" order that affects 6.7 million people in Northern California, even though COVID-19 outbreaks there might not yet seem severe.
The "curve" researchers are talking about refers to the projected number of people who will contract COVID-19 over a period of time. (To be clear, this is not a hard prediction of how many people will definitely be infected, but a theoretical number that's used to model the virus' spread.)
The curve takes on different shapes, depending on the virus's infection rate. It could be a steep curve, in which the virus spreads exponentially (that is, case counts keep doubling at a consistent rate), and the total number of cases skyrockets to its peak within a few weeks. Infection curves with a steep rise also have a steep fall; after the virus infects pretty much everyone who can be infected, case numbers begin to drop exponentially, too.
The faster the infection curve rises, the quicker the local health care system gets overloaded beyond its capacity to treat people. As we're seeing in Italy, more and more new patients may be forced to go without ICU beds, and more and more hospitals may run out of the basic supplies they need to respond to the outbreak.
A flatter curve, on the other hand, assumes the same number of people ultimately get infected, but over a longer period of time. A slower infection rate means a less stressed health care system, fewer hospital visits on any given day and fewer sick people being turned away.
For a simple metaphor, consider an office bathroom.
"Your workplace bathroom has only so many stalls," Charles Bergquist, director of the public radio science show "Science Friday" tweeted. "If everyone decides to go at the same time, there are problems. If the same number of people need go to the restroom but spread over several hours, it's all ok."
