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.”
If the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that it doesn't prevent infection completely, all vaccines are "leaky." No vaccine provides 100% efficacy, or sterilizing immunity. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NotDonger:
If the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that it doesn't prevent infection completely, all vaccines are "leaky." No vaccine provides 100% efficacy, or sterilizing immunity.
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Go ahead, I'm waiting.
By the definition of "leaky vaccines" just posted how do the COVID-19 shots fit?
Prove they aren't leaky by that definition.
You are a liar and try to present yourself as a reasonable person just pointing out things, but the reality is that you have an agenda and are just spreading FUD.
I'm not sure anything you've posted as fact has actually been anything but conjecture, and you certainly have never come back and admitted when your wildly wrong posts proved inaccurate.
Your refusal to even address the authors clarification of the post you used to call the COVID vaccines leaky is a clear indictment of your intent. [Reply]
God help me, I'm going to regret posting in the middle of this argument.
There is clearly a misconception being thrown about. The idea that viruses become weaker, or less lethal, over time is not necessarily true. Does it often happen? Yes. But a virus seeks to spread its genetic material. There is nothing in there that requires it to mutate to become less virulent. COVID-19 is not particularly deadly. It just isn't. It's not Ebola. It could continue to mutate to spread more easily and maintain its current virulence or even become more virulent. I don't think that's likely, but it is absolutely within the realm of possibility.
Now, to balance that, anecdotal reports from doctors in Africa are that the newest variant is manifesting with less severe symptoms, most notably a decrease in the loss of taste and smell which has been a hallmark of COVID infections thus far. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
You are a liar and try to present yourself as a reasonable person just pointing out things, but the reality is that you have an agenda and are just spreading FUD.
I'm not sure anything you've posted as fact has actually been anything but conjecture, and you certainly have never come back and admitted when your wildly wrong posts proved inaccurate.
I have a POV. That POV is obvious in DC. Here, I simply pointed out a definition and you obviously don't like that.
So instead of crying about it you can
1.Show there is a better, more accepted definition
2.Show the Covid-19 vaccines are not leaky based on the definition I posted.
Originally Posted by Indian Chief:
God help me, I'm going to regret posting in the middle of this argument.
There is clearly a misconception being thrown about. The idea that viruses become weaker, or less lethal, over time is not necessarily true. Does it often happen? Yes. But a virus seeks to spread its genetic material. There is nothing in there that requires it to mutate to become less virulent. COVID-19 is not particularly deadly. It just isn't. It's not Ebola. It could continue to mutate to spread more easily and maintain its current virulence or even become more virulent. I don't think that's likely, but it is absolutely within the realm of possibility.
Now, to balance that, anecdotal reports from doctors in Africa are that the newest variant is manifesting with less severe symptoms, most notably a decrease in the loss of taste and smell which has been a hallmark of COVID infections this far.
Let me ask you something. Who is more likely to spread a virus?
A guy dying in bed who can barely move or a guy who feels a little off but goes about his normal activities? [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
That's not the definition.
They name vaccines which aren't.
It seems to be exactly what you think the definition is:
which means they reduce symptoms but people can still be infected by the viruses.
People can still be infected means less than 100% efficacy and not a sterilizing immunity vaccine, no?
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Most human vaccines, such as for polio, and the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine are perfect vaccines, so they also stop transmission of the disease in question
The vaccines for those illnesses don't provide 100% efficacy, either. People can and do still get those illnesses after vaccination. It's just very rare. So no, they aren't perfect:
One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella. Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps. MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live virus vaccine. [Reply]
Originally Posted by NotDonger:
It seems to be exactly what you think the definition is:
which means they reduce symptoms but people can still be infected by the viruses.
People can still be infected means less than 100% efficacy and not a sterilizing immunity vaccine, no?
The vaccines for those illnesses don't provide 100% efficacy, either. People can and do still get those illnesses after vaccination. It's just very rare. So no, they aren't perfect:
One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella. Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps. MMR is an attenuated (weakened) live virus vaccine.
Don't compare Covid-19 shots against measles or mumps vaccines for infection.
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
I have a POV. That POV is obvious in DC. Here, I simply pointed out a definition and you obviously don't like that.
So instead of crying about it you can
1.Show there is a better, more accepted definition
2.Show the Covid-19 vaccines are not leaky based on the definition I posted.
Looks like you gave up on 2.
Blather to deflect from your agenda. You lie constantly on this topic. It is a fact.
I can't address your point 2 because it isn't a known quantity at this point, as the author you use to define leaky vaccines so aptly points out in his own perfect rebuttal to your constant lies on the topic. So no need to even talk about it since you refuse to even address your sources rebuttal to your assertions on the topic.
Your point 1 is abstract and not germane to the discussion. It is merely a distraction from your constant lies. [Reply]
