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 penguinz:
Confirmed numbers are low because they are not testing and will not test unless you show all the symptoms or have been in documented contact with someone who has tested positive.
Just about everyone will be exposed at some point to this virus.
Preemptive testing is good but not what it's cracked up to be. It's a snapshot in time. You can take the test today and find out in 2 days you don't have it. Except right after you took the test you got exposed and actually do have it.
It's better for everyone to test those showing symptoms right now.
I would go as far as to say that I would bet a lot if not most people have been exposed to it already. [Reply]
We are living in a period of history that will far eclipse 9/11 and people here still saying it isn't a big deal because they can't understand the response from the entire world and want to keep their gyms open.
I'll post it again even though some idiot downvoted it for the media company it came from. This is the blueprint of the future before this shit gets locked down.
Please don't say the lords name in vain or Stevieray will hit you with some red. I don't want your reputation to be tarnished. Serious business. [Reply]
Originally Posted by FAX:
That was a little vague, I suppose.
I have things going on here and multitasking isn't my strong suit. Please allow me to elaborate.
I'm not suggesting that COVID-19 is a bio-weapon unleashed upon us by the Yellow Man ... although I wouldn't put it past them. (I've long been concerned that we would be invaded by the Chinese using young girls with Machine Gun Bras to storm our beaches - but that's another story).
I'm also not suggesting that this is a globalist conspiracy promulgated by pedophiles and human traffickers in order to evade justice.
I'm saying that the numbers don't add up to justifying the panic response. There is a mountain of data available out there that spans decades regarding viruses (the dreaded "V" word). Due to time restrictions on my part, there is far too much raw data for me to post here, so I'll use a simple example;
The CDC relies on something called "weekly influenza surveillance data" in order to project how virulent and/or deadly certain flu viruses "might be". This data is then used as a baseline for their projections. The system is inherently flawed because it relies on lab results (which might be conducted in hospital or on an outpatient basis). The CDC knows that lab results are not ALWAYS accurate and they just live with the variance. Additionally, not all flu issues are reported, so there's that. Okay so far.
They also use something called the U.S. Influenza Surveillance System which is a kind of polling method that samples roughly 8% of the US population. They've done that for about 10 years or so. This "system" uses WHO data, data from the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS), plus a bunch of public health and clinical labs. This data is compiled in order to estimate the effect of a virus on the human population and this is the data they use to make projections. It's how they track things like H1 and H2 by geography and demographics then prioritize vaccine efforts. That makes sense.
Then the problems begin to emerge.
Professional virologists know that viruses are constantly changing. Viruses do that to survive (just like us). Because labs are checking for "known" viruses (read Novel Influenza A, for example), there is no guarantee that COVID-19 or any other variant of the Coronavirus would ever be identified in past general lab analyses. In fact, it's extremely unlikely. There are a hundred+ viruses that want to (and regularly do) infect human beings. You can't and don't check for every possible mutation. The labs that report to the CDC's Flu Surveillance System couldn't even afford to try ... let alone technically accomplish that goal on a regular or reliable basis. And remember, these viruses are constantly evolving and mutating. It's a perpetually moving target.
The CDC currently estimates the (non-corona) "seasonal flu" will kill 22,000 people in the USA during the 2019/2020 season. It could be as many as 55,000. Who knows? They don't. It's a projection based on "best available" data that is inherently flawed. Okay. We can live with that and we do.
Now we have this ...
Potential COVID-19 mortality rates being widely reported by the American mass media don't seem to compute. They are commonly reporting that the global mortality rate of the flu is somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.1%. They then compare that to COVID-19 and claim the "death toll" can be as much as 10x higher. Well, the global mortality rate of the seasonal flu is not 0.1% ... not if you use "confirmed cases" (as reported by the CDC system) as the baseline. If you do that, the mortality rate of seasonal flu is closer to 10% ... if not higher based on unreported or poorly reported "cause of death" cases. Why would they use the 0.1% number in the comparisons to COVID-19 which are currently estimated by the WHO at 3.4% of "confirmed" cases? You tell me.
Finally, the virologists I've been resourcing are coming to the opinion that COVID-19 (or variants thereof) may have been around a long time. In other words, coronavirus itself is nothing particularly new and people have been walking around with some variant for years. Several of these specialists have raised my red flag by commenting on the "feedback loop" created between politicians and medical advisers (including those who have a vested, profit interest in policy changes or investment) that has led to the reaction we have seen in the US.
It's fair to say that the US has the best health care system in the world. Our system surpasses Italy's, Spain's, the UK's, Canada's, etc., etc. No reasonable person would argue that point. We are not Italy and we have not imported Wuhan workers to make soft leather vests. We are different.
In short, I'm unconvinced that we're not being sold a bunch of politically-motivated overkill and undue panic.
FAX
I am not convinced this is benefiting any specific political party in any of the countries being affected by this virus, also in many surveys those countries you listed tend to score higher when it comes to overall health care scores including life expectancy. [Reply]
Originally Posted by FAX:
That was a little vague, I suppose.
I have things going on here and multitasking isn't my strong suit. Please allow me to elaborate.
I'm not suggesting that COVID-19 is a bio-weapon unleashed upon us by the Yellow Man ... although I wouldn't put it past them. (I've long been concerned that we would be invaded by the Chinese using young girls with Machine Gun Bras to storm our beaches - but that's another story).
I'm also not suggesting that this is a globalist conspiracy promulgated by pedophiles and human traffickers in order to evade justice.
I'm saying that the numbers don't add up to justifying the panic response. There is a mountain of data available out there that spans decades regarding viruses (the dreaded "V" word). Due to time restrictions on my part, there is far too much raw data for me to post here, so I'll use a simple example;
The CDC relies on something called "weekly influenza surveillance data" in order to project how virulent and/or deadly certain flu viruses "might be". This data is then used as a baseline for their projections. The system is inherently flawed because it relies on lab results (which might be conducted in hospital or on an outpatient basis). The CDC knows that lab results are not ALWAYS accurate and they just live with the variance. Additionally, not all flu issues are reported, so there's that. Okay so far.
They also use something called the U.S. Influenza Surveillance System which is a kind of polling method that samples roughly 8% of the US population. They've done that for about 10 years or so. This "system" uses WHO data, data from the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS), plus a bunch of public health and clinical labs. This data is compiled in order to estimate the effect of a virus on the human population and this is the data they use to make projections. It's how they track things like H1 and H2 by geography and demographics then prioritize vaccine efforts. That makes sense.
Then the problems begin to emerge.
Professional virologists know that viruses are constantly changing. Viruses do that to survive (just like us). Because labs are checking for "known" viruses (read Novel Influenza A, for example), there is no guarantee that COVID-19 or any other variant of the Coronavirus would ever be identified in past general lab analyses. In fact, it's extremely unlikely. There are a hundred+ viruses that want to (and regularly do) infect human beings. You can't and don't check for every possible mutation. The labs that report to the CDC's Flu Surveillance System couldn't even afford to try ... let alone technically accomplish that goal on a regular or reliable basis. And remember, these viruses are constantly evolving and mutating. It's a perpetually moving target.
The CDC currently estimates the (non-corona) "seasonal flu" will kill 22,000 people in the USA during the 2019/2020 season. It could be as many as 55,000. Who knows? They don't. It's a projection based on "best available" data that is inherently flawed. Okay. We can live with that and we do.
Now we have this ...
Potential COVID-19 mortality rates being widely reported by the American mass media don't seem to compute. They are commonly reporting that the global mortality rate of the flu is somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.1%. They then compare that to COVID-19 and claim the "death toll" can be as much as 10x higher. Well, the global mortality rate of the seasonal flu is not 0.1% ... not if you use "confirmed cases" (as reported by the CDC system) as the baseline. If you do that, the mortality rate of seasonal flu is closer to 10% ... if not higher based on unreported or poorly reported "cause of death" cases. Why would they use the 0.1% number in the comparisons to COVID-19 which are currently estimated by the WHO at 3.4% of "confirmed" cases? You tell me.
Finally, the virologists I've been resourcing are coming to the opinion that COVID-19 (or variants thereof) may have been around a long time. In other words, coronavirus itself is nothing particularly new and people have been walking around with some variant for years. Several of these specialists have raised my red flag by commenting on the "feedback loop" created between politicians and medical advisers (including those who have a vested, profit interest in policy changes or investment) that has led to the reaction we have seen in the US.
It's fair to say that the US has the best health care system in the world. Our system surpasses Italy's, Spain's, the UK's, Canada's, etc., etc. No reasonable person would argue that point. We are not Italy and we have not imported Wuhan workers to make soft leather vests. We are different.
In short, I'm unconvinced that we're not being sold a bunch of politically-motivated overkill and undue panic.
FAX
We're tiptoeing on a conversation that would probably be better suited for the DC thread. But I'll say this much...I'm not real comfortable putting my trust into a group of people who have done little, if anything, to earn that trust. But I don't have a choice. [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
Preemptive testing is good but not what it's cracked up to be. It's a snapshot in time. You can take the test today and find out in 2 days you don't have it. Except right after you took the test you got exposed and actually do have it.
It's better for everyone to test those showing symptoms right now.
I would go as far as to say that I would bet most people have been exposed to it already.
My wife has all the symptoms currently and they will not test her because she has not been near any of the confirmed cases. That is total BS. She has been told to just go to the hospital if breathing becomes more of an issue and temp starts going up and tylenol won't bring down.
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Please don't say the lords name in vain or Stevieray will hit you with some red. I don't want your reputation to be tarnished. Serious business.
It could be the Spanish version of Jesus for christs sake! [Reply]
Originally Posted by FAX:
That was a little vague, I suppose.
I have things going on here and multitasking isn't my strong suit. Please allow me to elaborate.
I'm not suggesting that COVID-19 is a bio-weapon unleashed upon us by the Yellow Man ... although I wouldn't put it past them. (I've long been concerned that we would be invaded by the Chinese using young girls with Machine Gun Bras to storm our beaches - but that's another story).
I'm also not suggesting that this is a globalist conspiracy promulgated by pedophiles and human traffickers in order to evade justice.
I'm saying that the numbers don't add up to justifying the panic response. There is a mountain of data available out there that spans decades regarding viruses (the dreaded "V" word). Due to time restrictions on my part, there is far too much raw data for me to post here, so I'll use a simple example;
The CDC relies on something called "weekly influenza surveillance data" in order to project how virulent and/or deadly certain flu viruses "might be". This data is then used as a baseline for their projections. The system is inherently flawed because it relies on lab results (which might be conducted in hospital or on an outpatient basis). The CDC knows that lab results are not ALWAYS accurate and they just live with the variance. Additionally, not all flu issues are reported, so there's that. Okay so far.
They also use something called the U.S. Influenza Surveillance System which is a kind of polling method that samples roughly 8% of the US population. They've done that for about 10 years or so. This "system" uses WHO data, data from the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS), plus a bunch of public health and clinical labs. This data is compiled in order to estimate the effect of a virus on the human population and this is the data they use to make projections. It's how they track things like H1 and H2 by geography and demographics then prioritize vaccine efforts. That makes sense.
Then the problems begin to emerge.
Professional virologists know that viruses are constantly changing. Viruses do that to survive (just like us). Because labs are checking for "known" viruses (read Novel Influenza A, for example), there is no guarantee that COVID-19 or any other variant of the Coronavirus would ever be identified in past general lab analyses. In fact, it's extremely unlikely. There are a hundred+ viruses that want to (and regularly do) infect human beings. You can't and don't check for every possible mutation. The labs that report to the CDC's Flu Surveillance System couldn't even afford to try ... let alone technically accomplish that goal on a regular or reliable basis. And remember, these viruses are constantly evolving and mutating. It's a perpetually moving target.
The CDC currently estimates the (non-corona) "seasonal flu" will kill 22,000 people in the USA during the 2019/2020 season. It could be as many as 55,000. Who knows? They don't. It's a projection based on "best available" data that is inherently flawed. Okay. We can live with that and we do.
Now we have this ...
Potential COVID-19 mortality rates being widely reported by the American mass media don't seem to compute. They are commonly reporting that the global mortality rate of the flu is somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.1%. They then compare that to COVID-19 and claim the "death toll" can be as much as 10x higher. Well, the global mortality rate of the seasonal flu is not 0.1% ... not if you use "confirmed cases" (as reported by the CDC system) as the baseline. If you do that, the mortality rate of seasonal flu is closer to 10% ... if not higher based on unreported or poorly reported "cause of death" cases. Why would they use the 0.1% number in the comparisons to COVID-19 which are currently estimated by the WHO at 3.4% of "confirmed" cases? You tell me.
Finally, the virologists I've been resourcing are coming to the opinion that COVID-19 (or variants thereof) may have been around a long time. In other words, coronavirus itself is nothing particularly new and people have been walking around with some variant for years. Several of these specialists have raised my red flag by commenting on the "feedback loop" created between politicians and medical advisers (including those who have a vested, profit interest in policy changes or investment) that has led to the reaction we have seen in the US.
It's fair to say that the US has the best health care system in the world. Our system surpasses Italy's, Spain's, the UK's, Canada's, etc., etc. No reasonable person would argue that point. We are not Italy and we have not imported Wuhan workers to make soft leather vests. We are different.
In short, I'm unconvinced that we're not being sold a bunch of politically-motivated overkill and undue panic.
Originally Posted by FAX:
That was a little vague, I suppose.
I have things going on here and multitasking isn't my strong suit. Please allow me to elaborate.
I'm not suggesting that COVID-19 is a bio-weapon unleashed upon us by the Yellow Man ... although I wouldn't put it past them. (I've long been concerned that we would be invaded by the Chinese using young girls with Machine Gun Bras to storm our beaches - but that's another story).
I'm also not suggesting that this is a globalist conspiracy promulgated by pedophiles and human traffickers in order to evade justice.
I'm saying that the numbers don't add up to justifying the panic response. There is a mountain of data available out there that spans decades regarding viruses (the dreaded "V" word). Due to time restrictions on my part, there is far too much raw data for me to post here, so I'll use a simple example;
The CDC relies on something called "weekly influenza surveillance data" in order to project how virulent and/or deadly certain flu viruses "might be". This data is then used as a baseline for their projections. The system is inherently flawed because it relies on lab results (which might be conducted in hospital or on an outpatient basis). The CDC knows that lab results are not ALWAYS accurate and they just live with the variance. Additionally, not all flu issues are reported, so there's that. Okay so far.
They also use something called the U.S. Influenza Surveillance System which is a kind of polling method that samples roughly 8% of the US population. They've done that for about 10 years or so. This "system" uses WHO data, data from the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS), plus a bunch of public health and clinical labs. This data is compiled in order to estimate the effect of a virus on the human population and this is the data they use to make projections. It's how they track things like H1 and H2 by geography and demographics then prioritize vaccine efforts. That makes sense.
Then the problems begin to emerge.
Professional virologists know that viruses are constantly changing. Viruses do that to survive (just like us). Because labs are checking for "known" viruses (read Novel Influenza A, for example), there is no guarantee that COVID-19 or any other variant of the Coronavirus would ever be identified in past general lab analyses. In fact, it's extremely unlikely. There are a hundred+ viruses that want to (and regularly do) infect human beings. You can't and don't check for every possible mutation. The labs that report to the CDC's Flu Surveillance System couldn't even afford to try ... let alone technically accomplish that goal on a regular or reliable basis. And remember, these viruses are constantly evolving and mutating. It's a perpetually moving target.
The CDC currently estimates the (non-corona) "seasonal flu" will kill 22,000 people in the USA during the 2019/2020 season. It could be as many as 55,000. Who knows? They don't. It's a projection based on "best available" data that is inherently flawed. Okay. We can live with that and we do.
Now we have this ...
Potential COVID-19 mortality rates being widely reported by the American mass media don't seem to compute. They are commonly reporting that the global mortality rate of the flu is somewhere in the neighborhood of 0.1%. They then compare that to COVID-19 and claim the "death toll" can be as much as 10x higher. Well, the global mortality rate of the seasonal flu is not 0.1% ... not if you use "confirmed cases" (as reported by the CDC system) as the baseline. If you do that, the mortality rate of seasonal flu is closer to 10% ... if not higher based on unreported or poorly reported "cause of death" cases. Why would they use the 0.1% number in the comparisons to COVID-19 which are currently estimated by the WHO at 3.4% of "confirmed" cases? You tell me.
Finally, the virologists I've been resourcing are coming to the opinion that COVID-19 (or variants thereof) may have been around a long time. In other words, coronavirus itself is nothing particularly new and people have been walking around with some variant for years. Several of these specialists have raised my red flag by commenting on the "feedback loop" created between politicians and medical advisers (including those who have a vested, profit interest in policy changes or investment) that has led to the reaction we have seen in the US.
It's fair to say that the US has the best health care system in the world. Our system surpasses Italy's, Spain's, the UK's, Canada's, etc., etc. No reasonable person would argue that point. We are not Italy and we have not imported Wuhan workers to make soft leather vests. We are different.
In short, I'm unconvinced that we're not being sold a bunch of politically-motivated overkill and undue panic.
FAX
Which virologists are suggesting that the virus that causes Covid-19 has been around a long time?
I'm really trying to find your data
I see that we have had around 18k influenza hospitalizations this year, and 260000 positive tests.
How does that even come close to a 10 percent case fatality? That's not even a 10 percent hospitalization. [Reply]
I should also like to say that it probably doesn't matter at this point. The horse is out of the barn.
People will believe what they "want" to believe. I'm not trying to change that because I know I can't and pissing up ropes is not my idea of good times. My actual idea is simply this; there are gobs of data available and I encourage you guys to dive into that pool of information. Knowledge helps.
Things may be dire. They may not be dire. That is where we are and we have no choice other than to deal with it.
I'm just a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude. And this particular, individual dude isn't completely sold on the overall response we've seen (to date) related to this health threat.