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.”
My wife had quit drinking and then the virus and lockdowns occurred and she's back to drinking everyday. I had really cut way back on my drinking but with this BS I was back to drinking at least every other day. Since I got the bat flu I haven't had a drink which is at least a small positive from an awful situation. It's a screwed up situation. [Reply]
Originally Posted by suzzer99:
Is that the best you can find? NYC had field portable field morgues last winter. They have a reason to be concerned.
If it makes you feel better this is mostly a certain sect of Orthodox Jews in Brooklyn (and some in Westchester) who refuse to follow any guidelines whatsoever.
I never get an answer on the "what can't you do?" question - just continual complaining about "lockdown" and parroting mental health talking points (which are 100% politically motivated). Nothing has been really locked down for a long time now.
Yea. There are some things some places that are locked down which are no doubt hurting businesses. Businesses in university towns that have gone online are hurting.
But a lot of things have been driven by consumer choice.
Airlines aren't locked down but they are looking likely to declare bankruptcy.
Since the virus hit, I've not taken two trips I would have otherwise taken.
I'm working from home. I never eat lunch out anymore. Still eat out for diner but probably less. And its not because those places are legally locked down. [Reply]
That's a good point. I'll add that all the different phases we've moved into, then had to scale back, then moved back into creates a confusion to actually know what we can and can't do or where we can go and can't go to the point we don't even bother much.
Same with other locations. We've been taking day trips to various state parks for outdoor activities and its really hard to keep track of what's available in other towns so we typically bypass their local businesses. Its kind of up to a business to have their website updated with their rules/regs, which they should be doing already, but its an extra step for consumers to seek out and people like me aren't bothering.
One thing here in Chicago that's been impactful is they're anticipating 90% of local music venues will be permanently closed due to covid restrictions. You have hope things like that will come back, but its something that goes directly towards current state mental health. Things people do to add balance to their lives and relieve stress. I have zero doubt the protest tensions we've seen here this summer would've been much less had the normal summer concert, festivals and other arts gone off as normal, but I totally understand why those things couldn't happen. People live for summer in cold weather cities so there was no relief from seasonal depression in a lot of places. I know we're to the point of if we can't enjoy the amenities of the city, and we're both working from home, then whats the point of living here. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
I’ve got clients of varying degrees of success and age and gender. There is no surprise to me on any of them on their views towards masks. It is not political for any of them that don’t want to wear masks. It’s more personal and a reflection of their personalities.
In general the behavioral and cognitive tendencies of the ones who don’t like the masks which existed previous to masks are that they don’t have feelings of control in most aspects of life which cause them dysfunction in many ways. They also generally view outside forces as acting against them personally as part of defending themselves from their own shortcomings.
But like most people, they want to feel in control of their lives but often find it difficult to do or see as an option. But with the masks that is something they can easily feel they are controlling within their daily lives by not doing what, in their minds, the outside forces are trying to do to them personally. So for my particular group it’s not about ignoring what’s good for others or being selfish, for them it’s about grasping something that they can finally use to take away others attempts at controlling them. Obviously this isn’t the case for everyone but I do believe this thought process of not wanting others to exert control and taking those attempts as personal occurs in a lot of people.
I assume you also take the view point that the pro mask crowd have a need to have some sort of control over a situation that really isn't controllable and control over what others do as well. That's my take on it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy:
I assume you also take the view point that the pro mask crowd have a need to have some sort of control over a situation that really isn't controllable and control over what others do as well. That's my take on it.
Perhaps but I think that what happens psychologically does not always challenge as much of a person’s personality. On a personal level, leaving out impact on others, if people are supposed to wear masks then following along with it without complaint seems more about just following another rule and actually doesn’t require much thought or create emotional reactions.
Now for those with high anxiety tendencies who fear the virus more than they are impacted by the thought processes in my previous post about not wanting to be controlled by others, they certainly seem to have a more emotional relationship with masks as in they want to feel in control of the virus and the masks help them feel that. It makes them feel better by reducing some anxiety as it provides that sense of doing something to control the virus. They certainly can seem to be the ones who would take that next step of unloading their emotions about masks and the virus on others in attempts to control them. If masks were a recommendation but not actually required and no signs posted at stores or things like that this group would certainly wear masks.
I think most people fall in the category described in my first paragraph of just going along with the rules in place. But when or if they are in places masks were a recommendation but not actually required and no signs posted at stores or things like that and the choice becomes theirs then they do have to make their own decisions which will have them lean towards one of these opposite sides of wear or not wear masks based on a combination of personality characteristics and thought processes. [Reply]
The World Health Organization’s special envoy on COVID-19 Dr. David Nabarro in an interview stated lockdowns are not helpful as the primary means to control COVID-19. He advocated a middle path which means holding the virus at bay whilst keeping economy and social life going. It would require "high level of organisation by governments and remarkable degree of engagement of people" with robust infectious disease control services or public health. He emphasised on combining of several measures such as "physical distancing , face protection, hygiene, isolating the ill and protecting the vulnerable" as an effective method. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Sounds reasonable, with a pretty heavy caveat:
The World Health Organization’s special envoy on COVID-19 Dr. David Nabarro in an interview stated lockdowns are not helpful as the primary means to control COVID-19. He advocated a middle path which means holding the virus at bay whilst keeping economy and social life going. It would require "high level of organisation by governments and remarkable degree of engagement of people" with robust infectious disease control services or public health. He emphasised on combining of several measures such as "physical distancing , face protection, hygiene, isolating the ill and protecting the vulnerable" as an effective method.
SOunds sensible, but the government would bungle it [Reply]
Re-exposures are essential to build our immune system. This is not in question. They are like training.
But like anything, when enough people get a re-exposure, there are going to be rare cases here and there that go awry and someone gets more sick the second time.
Scientists publish information on rare events in academic journals bc we learn a lot from these. But media has a different role than academic journals and should be responsible about reporting on important issues to the every day person. The two are not the same.
There's been a few stories making the rounds about people getting sick twice and getting sicker the second time - which is the threshold for immunity wearing off. Here's some good info on reinfection and why a few anecdotal cases probably isn't a big deal. But if immunity is really a year or so - a lot of people could become vulnerable again early next year.
Pete, BigCatDaddy, the rest of the anti-mask brigade - take note. This is what being balanced and actually caring about the truth looks like. I'm not just posting gloom and doom. I'm trying to ascertain what's really happening. You guys just spew covid-denier/minimizer talking points 24/7. You're debating, not trying to arrive at any kind of understanding. And I'm sure you believe the same about me. But you're wrong. [Reply]
