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.”
Lockdowns were a mistake. They weren't properly planned or executed. Full scale lockdowns were never needed to curb it.
The problem with them is that you essentially have to stay in them until a vaccine or whatnot or you're gonna get flareups, even with test and trace. Now ideally, you ahve the numbers low enough you can put out embers before they fire way up, so there's validity there.
That we have seen places use more targeted approaches and get it under control is example enough. With locking everything down so hard and fast the first time, we didn't and really still don't know what actually slows infections and what doesnt'. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Lockdowns were a mistake. They weren't properly planned or executed. Full scale lockdowns were never needed to curb it.
The problem with them is that you essentially have to stay in them until a vaccine or whatnot or you're gonna get flareups, even with test and trace. Now ideally, you ahve the numbers low enough you can put out embers before they fire way up, so there's validity there.
That we have seen places use more targeted approaches and get it under control is example enough. With locking everything down so hard and fast the first time, we didn't and really still don't know what actually slows infections and what doesnt'.
I don't see how you can say that. We did lock down, and we saw the cases drop. If that fact wasn't caused by the lock down, what do you think caused it?
We know that it's spread by humans. So, reducing human contact slows, and drops, the rate of infection.
I really don't know how you can argue against that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
Lockdowns were a mistake. They weren't properly planned or executed. Full scale lockdowns were never needed to curb it.
The problem with them is that you essentially have to stay in them until a vaccine or whatnot or you're gonna get flareups, even with test and trace. Now ideally, you ahve the numbers low enough you can put out embers before they fire way up, so there's validity there.
That we have seen places use more targeted approaches and get it under control is example enough. With locking everything down so hard and fast the first time, we didn't and really still don't know what actually slows infections and what doesnt'.
I largely agree. The initial reason for the lockdown was to prevent hospitals from being bombarded. That worked inside of a couple of weeks. The extended lockdowns arguably did as much ancillary damage as good.
And your point is completely valid. Unless you were prepared for an extreme lockdown until the virus was literally gone then you were doing nothing more than delaying the inevitable.
It comes down to medical resources. If the hospitals are being flooded you shut things down. Otherwise you carry on cautiously. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
I don't see how you can say that. We did lock down, and we saw the cases drop. If that fact wasn't caused by the lock down, what do you think caused it?
We know that it's spread by humans. So, reducing human contact slows, and drops, the rate of infection.
I really don't know how you can argue against that.
We are also seeing cases drop now without strict lockdowns. In some areas, there were cases dropping before lockdowns it looks like.
The WHO, the CDC, basically all argue that strict lockdowns across a broad area aren't to be used, local and strategic ones are. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
We are also seeing cases drop now without strict lockdowns. In some areas, there were cases dropping before lockdowns it looks like.
The WHO, the CDC, basically all argue that strict lockdowns across a broad area aren't to be used, local and strategic ones are.
Yes we are, but with mask wearing, and there are still many closures, right? Are you suggesting that we should have had no lockdowns and everyone should have just masked up?
Again, what caused the drop in cases after March? [Reply]
Originally Posted by petegz28:
I largely agree. The initial reason for the lockdown was to prevent hospitals from being bombarded. That worked inside of a couple of weeks. The extended lockdowns arguably did as much ancillary damage as good.
And your point is completely valid. Unless you were prepared for an extreme lockdown until the virus was literally gone then you were doing nothing more than delaying the inevitable.
It comes down to medical resources. If the hospitals are being flooded you shut things down. Otherwise you carry on cautiously.
The problem was we didn't and still don't fully know what is a driver in infections and what isn't. We have a pretty good idea for sure.
But it would have been more thoughtful to lock certain things down one by one and see what works. Thats hindsight, but it's what we're doing now.
There has been fuck ups on all sides and no one is blameless in this from a standpoint of leadership. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
The problem was we didn't and still don't fully know what is a driver in infections and what isn't. We have a pretty good idea for sure.
But it would have been more thoughtful to lock certain things down one by one and see what works. Thats hindsight, but it's what we're doing now.
There has been **** ups on all sides and no one is blameless in this from a standpoint of leadership.
Originally Posted by Donger:
Yes we are, but with mask wearing, and there are still many closures, right? Are you suggesting that we should have had no lockdowns and everyone should have just masked up?
What were those organizations thoughts on mask wearing for non sick before this all started? Based on my understanding it was that it wouldn't curb much.
Now maybe thats changed ( I'm of the opinion that it helps, but isn't necessarily a magic bullet of any kind and it's probably marginally helpful).
But we have nations that did strict lockdowns and got it way down who are now having issues. We have mask wearing nations and such who are now having outbreaks.
My issue with doing anything that drastic is that if it's not feasible to keep doing, it's probably gonna be looked at not long term and while it will help, in the end, it's more of a delay. Which was the point the whole time. Not to completely suppress. That horse left the barn a long time ago. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Donger:
Yes we do. Human contact.
I'm not arguing semantics with you this morning, I've got to much shit to do.
But yeah, human contact. Sustained or quick? For how long? Is it all aerosolized that causes the most infections?
I don't think eliminating human contact for a substantial amount of time comes without downfalls. But I'm basically at the end of the line with arguing about it so whatever you guys think, have at it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
What were those organizations thoughts on mask wearing for non sick before this all started? Based on my understanding it was that it wouldn't curb much.
Now maybe thats changed ( I'm of the opinion that it helps, but isn't necessarily a magic bullet of any kind and it's probably marginally helpful).
But we have nations that did strict lockdowns and got it way down who are now having issues. We have mask wearing nations and such who are now having outbreaks.
My issue with doing anything that drastic is that if it's not feasible to keep doing, it's probably gonna be looked at not long term and while it will help, in the end, it's more of a delay. Which was the point the whole time. Not to completely suppress. That horse left the barn a long time ago.
Yes, we do have some countries that are seeing flare ups, and they've identified why and how.
Since we did take the mitigation efforts we did, we don't know what would have happened without it. We have the death estimates, and I wouldn't have liked to see those come to fruition. If you differ, so be it. We'll just disagree. [Reply]
Originally Posted by O.city:
I'm not arguing semantics with you this morning, I've got to much shit to do.
But yeah, human contact. Sustained or quick? For how long? Is it all aerosolized that causes the most infections?
I don't think eliminating human contact for a substantial amount of time comes without downfalls. But I'm basically at the end of the line with arguing about it so whatever you guys think, have at it.
It's not semantics. We do know what drives the spread of this bug: humans.
Originally Posted by Donger:
Yes, we do have some countries that are seeing flare ups, and they've identified why and how.
Since we did take the mitigation efforts we did, we don't know what would have happened without it. We have the death estimates, and I wouldn't have liked to see those come to fruition. If you differ, so be it. We'll just disagree.
We have the death estimates for Sweden as well and we saw what they've done and they estimates are vastly off. In the end, as we've seen, thats basically the route all the countries are gonna end up going.
They also have been misconstrued as doing nothing (Sweden that is) and thats not the case. They basically did what we're doing now and have had success with it, so hopefully thats where we'll be in a month or so. [Reply]