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 AustinChief:
Ok question for everybody...
Now that multiple reports are showing fatality rates for people under 50 to be equivalent to a bad flu season, what is the point in continued isolation of that demographic after our death rates plateau or start to fall?
Let's say we have already hit peak and the next few days we stay below 1000 deaths/day (this is not a prediction but a hypothetical). At what point do you ease restrictions on the extremely low risk people? We obviously can't shelter in place until a vaccine comes out. Do we wait until a treatment has been proven to be effective? Do we wait until a certain percentage of America has immunity? What is your metric?
Rate of spread would be the ideal way to determine the impact of mitigation efforts. Under 50s are no more or less likely to spread the virus, some would say more likely due to more mobile than 50 plus and more prone to gather in groups foolishly and against the guidelines we have established. The restrictions will need to stay intact after we begin to see declines, and the easing of restrictions will need to be don slowly so we can monitor the impact of each...and likely hotbeds of infections will be the last areas that should get relief.
Hopefully the med community will have a standard process in place to deliver vaccinations in an orderly manner [Reply]
But they are getting to be quite physically frail (and the cognitive slide is starting too)
Oh okay I see what you are saying.
That's true but I mean I think it is kind of harsh to call other ppl weak because they may have a physical condition that is no fault of their own. Lets try and work together to beat this and not act like we are better than ppl because some of us were lucky enough to not be born w some disabilities
Originally Posted by O.city:
Not necessarily
Some deaths wouldn’t be attributed to covid 19 because they had a false negative test
The other issue is that false negatives increase the likelihood of further spreading the virus, as those people are less likely to self-isolate or quarantine. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
The other issue is that false negatives increase the likelihood of further spreading the virus, as those people are less likely to self-isolate or quarantine.
If you assume 1/3 of the negatives are positive and that the actual number of infected is 100 to 130 times the number of positives, well.....
I haven't yet read this paper and am not an economist, but for those of you most concerned about the economic impact of this, it may be a worthwhile read:
The abstract states that the areas with the most rigorous public health response to Spanish flu were no worse off economically than those that eased restrictions earlier.
"We find no evidence that cities that acted more aggressively in public health terms performed worse in economic terms,” says Emil Verner, an assistant professor in the MIT Sloan School of Management and co-author of a new paper detailing the findings. “If anything, the cities that acted more aggressively performed better.” [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
I haven't yet read this paper and am not an economist, but for those of you most concerned about the economic impact of this, it may be a worthwhile read:
The abstract states that the areas with the most rigorous public health response to Spanish flu were no worse off economically than those that eased restrictions earlier.
I read it yesterday
It makes sense. The harder and faster you lock it down the faster you can get back to work theoretically [Reply]
Originally Posted by Marcellus:
So were yesterday's real numbers less than 1,000 deaths?
looks like it
Heard a report on the news last night that in NYC emergency rooms, if a patient goes into cardiac arrest and has no pulse when the ER team arrives, to not even try and revive. Call the death, clear & clean the room and wheel the next patient in. [Reply]
Heard a report on the news last night that in NYC emergency rooms, if a patient goes into cardiac arrest and has no pulse when the ER team arrives, to not even try and revive. Call the death, clear & clean the room and wheel the next patient in.
I didn't read that. I think you may be misunderstanding the article.
The policy is in regards to cardiac arrest in the field and resuscitation by EMS. If return of spontaneous circulation is not achieved in the field, the patient is no longer being transported to the hospital. The patient is declared dead in the field.
Believe it or not, there is a lot of evidence to support this, you cannot do high quality CPR in the back of an ambulance, and if return of circulation does not occur in the field it is very unlikely to occur in the hospital. I'm not certain, but I believe there are already EMS systems that have this policy in place, and it has nothing to do with Covid-19
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
No. Nor are the hospitalization rates similar.
Yes it is true and it's already been posted in this thread. .16%
I am not claiming that figure is a final number but that it is being reported as such is 100% true. So, you can kindly fuck off if you'd like to claim otherwise you arrogant piece of shit
Sent from my moto g(7) power using Tapatalk [Reply]
