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 MahomesMagic:
Sorry, those numbers in the piece were for Sweden. I used them to show that the idea of X will die with no mitigation was also way off and made up out of whole cloth.
Yeah, I just assume they projected the 40k number for Sweden in part due to the ~20-25k deaths in NYC (depending on when they were published, of course). [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
The numbers don't add up. The so called mitigation measures are also, ridiculous. Early on actual infectious disease experts stated you can't save lives, only perhaps slow down the rate of infection. That's why the message was "Flatten the Curve". The idea that we could do more than help hospitals out was a fairytale. But that fairytale was indeed substituted in a bait and switch.
Now the masks and shutdowns were not only going to save the hospitals, they were going to save lives. A proposition that no serious experts were proposing early on. Soon the NPI's and saving millions of lives was the new mission and we got on that right away.
The problem is that there is no science to back any of this up. The lockdowns have not been shown to save lives. Instead of actual science, we get smiley faces telling us to wear a mask to save lives and we are all in this together.
Anyone that can read and was curious early on knew that we were being lied to on this front.
Wrong:
“If you look at the curves of outbreaks, they go big peaks, and then come down. What we need to do is flatten that down,” Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told reporters Tuesday. “That would have less people infected. That would ultimately have less deaths. You do that by trying to interfere with the natural flow of the outbreak.”
To even attempt to claim that mitigation efforts have had no impact is silly. It's spread by people. Your agenda is showing again. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Wrong:
“If you look at the curves of outbreaks, they go big peaks, and then come down. What we need to do is flatten that down,” Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told reporters Tuesday. “That would have less people infected. That would ultimately have less deaths. You do that by trying to interfere with the natural flow of the outbreak.”
To even attempt to claim that mitigation efforts have had no impact is silly. It's spread by people. Your agenda is showing again.
Well, Fauci unfortunately you can find a quote for any position you want to take. And he has taken everyone of them!
Johan Giesecke was Europe's equivalent head of their CDC and this is what he said:
It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect.3 Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK's experience with that of other European countries.
• View related content for this article
PCR testing and some straightforward assumptions indicate that, as of April 29, 2020, more than half a million people in Stockholm county, Sweden, which is about 20–25% of the population, have been infected (Hansson D, Swedish Public Health Agency, personal communication). 98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection; they either had symptoms that were severe, but not severe enough for them to go to a hospital and get tested, or no symptoms at all. Serology testing is now supporting these assumptions.4
These facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.
Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.
In summary, COVID-19 is a disease that is highly infectious and spreads rapidly through society. It is often quite symptomless and might pass unnoticed, but it also causes severe disease, and even death, in a proportion of the population, and our most important task is not to stop spread, which is all but futile, but to concentrate on giving the unfortunate victims optimal care.
I declare no competing interests.
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
Well, Fauci unfortunately you can find a quote for any position you want to take. And he has taken everyone of them!
Johan Giesecke was Europe's equivalent head of their CDC and this is what he said:
It has become clear that a hard lockdown does not protect old and frail people living in care homes—a population the lockdown was designed to protect.3 Neither does it decrease mortality from COVID-19, which is evident when comparing the UK's experience with that of other European countries.
• View related content for this article
PCR testing and some straightforward assumptions indicate that, as of April 29, 2020, more than half a million people in Stockholm county, Sweden, which is about 20–25% of the population, have been infected (Hansson D, Swedish Public Health Agency, personal communication). 98–99% of these people are probably unaware or uncertain of having had the infection; they either had symptoms that were severe, but not severe enough for them to go to a hospital and get tested, or no symptoms at all. Serology testing is now supporting these assumptions.4
These facts have led me to the following conclusions. Everyone will be exposed to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2, and most people will become infected. COVID-19 is spreading like wildfire in all countries, but we do not see it—it almost always spreads from younger people with no or weak symptoms to other people who will also have mild symptoms. This is the real pandemic, but it goes on beneath the surface, and is probably at its peak now in many European countries. There is very little we can do to prevent this spread: a lockdown might delay severe cases for a while, but once restrictions are eased, cases will reappear. I expect that when we count the number of deaths from COVID-19 in each country in 1 year from now, the figures will be similar, regardless of measures taken.
Measures to flatten the curve might have an effect, but a lockdown only pushes the severe cases into the future —it will not prevent them. Admittedly, countries have managed to slow down spread so as not to overburden health-care systems, and, yes, effective drugs that save lives might soon be developed, but this pandemic is swift, and those drugs have to be developed, tested, and marketed quickly. Much hope is put in vaccines, but they will take time, and with the unclear protective immunological response to infection, it is not certain that vaccines will be very effective.
In summary, COVID-19 is a disease that is highly infectious and spreads rapidly through society. It is often quite symptomless and might pass unnoticed, but it also causes severe disease, and even death, in a proportion of the population, and our most important task is not to stop spread, which is all but futile, but to concentrate on giving the unfortunate victims optimal care.
I declare no competing interests.
Originally Posted by Shiver Me Timbers:
I fail to see how anyone is supposed to understand this comment
I was always told people in Sweden were doing a lot of the mitigation on their own thus it was hurting their economy. At least that's what was said on here when there was discussion about economies and lockdowns, etc. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
King of Sweden isn't in my bubble, sport.
Even Anders Tegnell admits that he wouldn't do it the same way again.
Just stop.
Yeah, you are just straight spewing lockdown propaganda now.
Of course Tegnell would not do everything the same. That's because he is a scientist and has a brain. He admitted that they should have gotten even more careful with the elderly homes. That's a piece of the overall strategy but does not say "I wish I killed more people like NY and ruined more lives".
Maybe the King Of Sweden met the British royals when they were discussing their plans in this brave new world. Good for them. Not my type.
I side with workers in America and small enterprise and business in my country. [Reply]
Originally Posted by :
A very crude estimate suggests that new cases should begin trending downward when about 60% of the population has been infected. My rough estimate showed that five states are likely to have more than 60% of their populations previously infected (North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Nebraska) with three others (Utah, Rhode Island, and Wyoming) approaching 60%. In each of these states, the recent trajectory for new cases is declining. States where the seven-day rolling averages are trending upward tend to have a lower rate of previous infections: South Carolina (39%), Texas (36%), Massachusetts (34%), California (32%), West Virginia (29%), the District of Columbia (28%), and New York (17%).
We have good reason to believe that a previous infection provides immunity. The two new vaccines are estimated to be about 95% effective in preventing infections. However, those who have suffered a previous infection may enjoy greater than 99% protection. True, there have been a few cases of COVID survivors who became reinfected. But reinfection is very rare. There are only 31 documented cases among some 81 million people who have been infected. In two large vaccine trials, people taking the active vaccine were 95% less likely than those getting placebo to get COVID. But those injected with placebo were still 200 times more likely to get COVID in comparison to the rate of reinfection among COVID survivors.
To be clear, I am not advocating that people deliberately get exposed to the coronavirus. It is simply too large a gamble. COVID-19 can have devasting consequences, including death. That is why so many people oppose achieving herd immunity through careless life choices. But unfortunately, many people have already become victims of the coronavirus. If they survived without lasting effects, they are not likely to get a new infection. In the states were the virus has hit hardest, we may be running out of people who are likely to get a new case of COVID-19.
Interesting bit from the article..
Originally Posted by :
Since previous infection may offer protection equal to or better than a vaccine, it makes no sense to give two dose for someone who has already been infected. In North Dakota, that would free up at least 180,000 does – enough to give a first injection to nearly a quarter of the population
So, if the deal is people who have had the virus are immune and as we hear today, the CDC said 100m+ have been infected then where does that leave us? [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
The vaccines were not tested for efficacy using this method. The author does not understand how evidence-based decisions are made.
This guy?
Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., is a faculty member at Stanford Medical School Clinical Excellence Research Center, a former associate director of the National Institutes of Health, and a former chief science officer for the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. [Reply]
Robert M. Kaplan, Ph.D., is a faculty member at Stanford Medical School Clinical Excellence Research Center, a former associate director of the National Institutes of Health, and a former chief science officer for the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.
With those credentials he should not be making those claims. He also provided no sourced evidence for his claim of infection levels. That's sloppy work from someone that fashions themselves a medical professional. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
With those credentials he should not be making those claims. He also provided no sourced evidence for his claim of infection levels. That's sloppy work from someone that fashions themselves a medical professional.
Okay, if you say so. I don't see how one gets to be where he is doing sloppy work but whatevs...... [Reply]