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 SupDock:
Those were not hospitalization rates, those were rates of emergency department/hospital visits. Unless you are assuming every patient in the emergency department gets admitted to the hospital, which they don’t. I have worked in emergency departments, and can promise you that many of those ED visits were for non serious side effects.
If you look at the VAERS data from the CDC link referenced:
In the 12-15 year age group there were 144 serious adverse events in 6 million doses. This is .0024% or .000024
In the 16-25 age group there were 790 serious adverse events out of 21.6 million doses. This is .003657% or .00003657
Please don’t take what your read at face value, especially considering your source of data interpretation.
Originally Posted by Monticore:
You don't trust the CDC but you trust their data, what about Heath Canada or or all the other entities that are recommending it , why do you trust that one guy from that one website trying to make a name for himself over them?
It's not his numbers, it's the CDC's own presentation.
Why is this so hard for you? If you aren't going to read it then why pretend that you did? [Reply]
Your data was from VSafe. Mine was from VAERS in the same report.
The VSafe data is medical care in Emergency dept or hospital. This is not the same thing as hospitalization. You don’t know what you are talking about and are trying to correct me.
Originally Posted by loochy:
That was always my point as well. I don't necessarily trust CDC numbers, but I REALLY don't trust numbers from random internet guys.
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Yes, he pulled it directly from the CDC presentation.
VSafe data is from an app where patients report how they feel. The percentage you are referring to is people Reporting if they were seen in an emergency department or hospital. This is not the same thing as a hospitalization rate. This is why I linked it to you the VAERS data
The data You are quoting does not mean what you think it means
If a kid got the vaccine and had vasovagal syncope And went to the emergency department where he drank some Powerade and went home, it goes into the ER visit rate. This is not a serious side effect and it’s not hospitalization. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SupDock:
VSafe data is from an app where patients report how they feel. The percentage you are referring to is people Reporting if they were seen in an emergency department or hospital. This is not the same thing as a hospitalization rate. This is why I linked it to you the VAERS data
The data You are quoting does not mean what you think it means
If a kid got the vaccine and had vasovagal syncope And went to the emergency department where he drank some Powerade and went home, it goes into the ER visit rate. This is not a serious side effect and it’s not hospitalization.
If...they went to the hospital and drank Powerade...
It's not a serious side effect because you just made it up.
Are you hearing me?
The VSafe data is individuals seen in an emergency department or hospital. This is self-reported data from patients. This is not the same thing as hospitalization rate or the rate of serious adverse events
Scroll a little further down on the CDC link you posted yourself and you can see the VAERS data of Serious adverse events. I already posted it for you above [Reply]
Originally Posted by SupDock:
Those were not hospitalization rates, those were rates of emergency department/hospital visits. Unless you are assuming every patient in the emergency department gets admitted to the hospital, which they don’t. I have worked in emergency departments, and can promise you that many of those ED visits were for non serious side effects.
If you look at the VAERS data from the CDC link referenced:
In the 12-15 year age group there were 144 serious adverse events in 6 million doses. This is .0024% or .000024
In the 16-25 age group there were 790 serious adverse events out of 21.6 million doses. This is .003657% or .00003657
Please don’t take what your read at face value, especially considering your source of data interpretation.
Originally Posted by loochy:
That was always my point as well. I don't necessarily trust CDC numbers, but I REALLY don't trust numbers from random internet guys.
Yeah, I think everyone should have a healthy skepticism of everything they read. And ironically enough, the people who are usually busy calling others sheep and assuming because they believe one thing from the CDC they believe everything they ever hear from all mainstream info sources... are just sheep of a different color (I was going to say black sheep, but it sounded racist).
It's just Alex Smith all over again. You have the ball washers, you have the extreme haters, and everyone in between who leans slightly one way or the other is just lumped into the extremes as well. [Reply]
The VSafe data is individuals seen in an emergency department or hospital. This is self-reported data from patients. This is not the same thing as hospitalization rate or the rate of serious adverse events
Scroll a little further down on the CDC link you posted yourself and you can see the VAERS data of Serious adverse events. I already posted it for you above
Yes, I heard you. You are full of it.
.2% goes to an emergency room or hospital is a serious enough adverse event.
We can also do the same for the Covid hospital rate where you see about half aren't in for Covid according to the Journal of Pediatrics who indicated the Covid pediatric numbers are about 50% too high.
In the end, you just want to pretend there is nothing to see and want to swallow the government's pronouncements. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Yes, I heard you. You are full of it.
.2% goes to an emergency room or hospital is a serious enough adverse event.
We can also do the same for the Covid hospital rate where you see about half aren't in for Covid according to the Journal of Pediatrics who indicated the Covid pediatric numbers are about 50% too high.
In the end, you just want to pretend there is nothing to see and want to swallow the government's pronouncements.
You misrepresented an emergency department visit rate as a hospitalization rate. Don’t move the goalposts here.
You also just said
“.2% goes to an emergency room or hospital is a serious enough adverse event.“
An emergency department visit is not what determines whether something is a serious adverse event or not. Should we start comparing Covid emergency department visits to vaccine emergency department visits? I promise you if the CDC started analyzing COVID by trips to the emergency department people on the denial side of the argument would be up in arms.
Anyone can walk into the ED for any reason. If a kiddo develops a fever in the middle of the night after the vaccine and they go to the emergency department unnecessarily, that’s not a serious adverse event.
You are misinterpreting data and then accusing me of pretending there’s nothing to see. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SupDock:
You misrepresented an emergency department visit rate as a hospitalization rate. Don’t move the goalposts here.
You also just said
“.2% goes to an emergency room or hospital is a serious enough adverse event.“
An emergency department visit is not what determines whether something is a serious adverse event or not. Should we start comparing Covid emergency department visits to vaccine emergency department visits? I promise you if the CDC started analyzing COVID by trips to the emergency department people on the denial side of the argument would be up in arms.
Anyone can walk into the ED for any reason. If a kiddo develops a fever in the middle of the night after the vaccine and they go to the emergency department unnecessarily, that’s not a serious adverse event.
You are misinterpreting data and then accusing me of pretending there’s nothing to see.
No, you are playing word games.
After the age of 5, I never went to an emergency room or a hospital. But in your world all these people are just going there for the fun of it..to drink Powerade.
Who in their right mind wants to go to a hospital for no reason?
And we do have people worked up by the media going to the emergency room because they think they have Covid when they have hayfever or a cold. But while those don't end up in hospital numbers I just explained how 50% of the Covid hospital numbers aren't Covid.
I promise you if the CDC started analyzing COVID by trips to the emergency department
Who knows what they know. Does VAERS and Vsafe suck? Yes. But that's all we have unless CDC has actual numbers of everyone in the hospital within time of taking a shot..but obviously if they had that they are hiding it.
Just like when Fauci and Walensky were doing the 99% vaccine propaganda when CDC's how internal surveillance showed May was 15% and going straight up, for people vaccinated in the hospital. [Reply]
2.5 million people get admitted to the hospital and 630k die: The numbers are clearly wrong based on this one study from May 2020 with a sample size of 200, and most of them were going to die anyway!
900 people out of 27 million doses show up to an ER after being vaccinated:
Originally Posted by :
this is not treatment, it’s assault.
