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 mr. tegu:
According to this CDC chart we have less hospitalizations for the 18-49 group per 100,000 people than the same time last year.
3.6 per 100k ending 7/31/21 compared to 5.1 per 100k 8/1/20. There was less movement and openness this time last year in those numbers, but this year more openness however with vaccines, so perhaps those differences even out with 2020 and the original variant still producing more hospitalizations. But it’s hard to say based on these numbers this variant hits younger people harder than the original variant.
Perhaps there is other data that would support it affecting younger people different or harder than the original variant.
Eh, you'd have to break that down alot. Depending on area, vaccination rate, delta spread etc.
Like from the beginning, we're such a big diverse country, it's hard to look at a total snapshot and get much. If I'm reading that site right, thats also only a select few states worth of data. [Reply]
A Virginia man's decision to post videos documenting his Covid-19 treatment has slowly turned into a tragic Facebook confessional pic.twitter.com/pNpLcs61wD
Originally Posted by O.city:
Eh, you'd have to break that down alot. Depending on area, vaccination rate, delta spread etc.
Like from the beginning, we're such a big diverse country, it's hard to look at a total snapshot and get much. If I'm reading that site right, thats also only a select few states worth of data.
I think people need to start breaking down the data more because one solution does not fit all based on what we are seeing.
I agree with you here, and we should be making more decisions based on Region / Age / Additional Health issues / Variants / Vaccination Status (not just comparing Vax vs Unvaxxed but Vax vs Vax and Unvaxxed vs Unvaxxed as well) [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Eh, you'd have to break that down alot. Depending on area, vaccination rate, delta spread etc.
Like from the beginning, we're such a big diverse country, it's hard to look at a total snapshot and get much. If I'm reading that site right, thats also only a select few states worth of data.
Yeah it’s not perfect but it’s the only thing I could find on the CDC with hospitalizations year over year. I just don’t know that a “50% of hospitalizations, highest ever, are under 50” conveys anything meaningful given that 50% is probably most affected by many factors, including the far higher amounts of older people vaccinated compared to last year when they were such a high percentage.
It makes sense to me that younger people percentages would increase as the pool of potential older people hospitalizations reduces faster than the potential pool of younger people hospitilazations reduces. Sort of like how the more people get vaccinated the larger percentage of hospitalizations they will become.
I’m open to it affecting younger people harder than the original but hospitalization rates ad increased media focus are not an indicator of that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by carlos3652:
I think people need to start breaking down the data more because one solution does not fit all based on what we are seeing.
I agree with you here, and we should be making more decisions based on Region / Age / Additional Health issues / Variants / Vaccination Status (not just comparing Vax vs Unvaxxed but Vax vs Vax and Unvaxxed vs Unvaxxed as well)
When anyone wants something like this done at such a large scale, you lose nuance. I agree with you here.
Let localities make decisions and help them if they need it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
Yeah it’s not perfect but it’s the only thing I could find on the CDC with hospitalizations year over year. I just don’t know that a “50% of hospitalizations, highest ever, are under 50” conveys anything meaningful given that 50% is probably most affected by many factors, including the far higher amounts of older people vaccinated compared to last year when they were such a high percentage.
It makes sense to me that younger people percentages would increase as the pool of potential older people hospitalizations reduces faster than the potential pool of younger people hospitilazations reduces. Sort of like how the more people get vaccinated the larger percentage of hospitalizations they will become.
I’m open to it affecting younger people harder than the original but hospitalization rates ad increased media focus are not an indicator of that.
You'd have to look at areas with heavy Delta percentage in the sequencing. It wouldn't necessarily be everywhere as wide spread yet.
Also weighing in vaccination rates of those ages Etc. [Reply]
In which they said that HCQ, Azithromycin and Zinc was their recommended protocol and the most effective treatment.
Although it's interesting how quickly they changed their tune from this:
HCQ was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm.
to this:
The article that the Brazilian government quotes as “proof” of the efficacy of HCQ was posted in PubMed before studies demonstrated that HCQ does more harm than good.
So they suddenly decided to disregard 66 years of safety evidence due to a few studies in which extreme doses were administered to very late stage patients? Seems legit. [Reply]
In which they said that HCQ, Azithromycin and Zinc was their recommended protocol and the most effective treatment.
Although it's interesting how quickly they changed their tune from this:
HCQ was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 1955, has been used by hundreds of millions of people worldwide since then, is sold over the counter in many countries, and has a well-characterized safety profile that should not raise undue alarm.
to this:
The article that the Brazilian government quotes as “proof” of the efficacy of HCQ was posted in PubMed before studies demonstrated that HCQ does more harm than good.
So they suddenly decided to disregard 66 years of safety evidence due to a few studies in which extreme doses were administered to very late stage patients? Seems legit.
Again, why are you so invested in this? Why not refocus that energy towards vaccination? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Saulbadguy:
Just add the words "by choice" after unvaccinated and you sure as hell can.
You cant be serious.
If a couple who is healthy in the designated age range (with probabilities of less than 1% of death) chooses not to have the vaccine because of wanting to have a baby and unsure of the clinical trials and long lasting effects on their future child who has to go through 9 months of pregnancy and then be breastfed for an additional 10 months..
Your opinion to call them stupid.... but you are wrong. [Reply]
Is this it? 93% is pretty good and not surprised that they are advocating for a 3rd boost might be needed for additional variants in the fall / winter.
How do you compare the efficacy of the unvaccinated vs the vaccinated? [Reply]
