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 RaidersOftheCellar:
My primary stance is that money is/was the biggest driving force. I don't think anything can change that.
I don't have any strong positions on safety or risks at this point. I'm just highly skeptical and I think the CDC is underreporting reactions.
The fact that the control groups have been eliminated (at least in the case of Pfizer and Moderna) will make it very difficult to assess their true safety and efficacy.
You didn't really answer the question though. What would you need to see to change your stance? You are clearly skeptical, what would change that skepticism? [Reply]
Mississippi, this is where we are. Fifty beds will be installed here in a concrete garage. The federal government will send overflow medical professionals to staff it. One of the last stopgaps between Mississippi and hospital system failure. pic.twitter.com/6Nj7e87qZZ
Mississippi, this is where we are. Fifty beds will be installed here in a concrete garage. The federal government will send overflow medical professionals to staff it. One of the last stopgaps between Mississippi and hospital system failure. pic.twitter.com/6Nj7e87qZZ
That guys wife didn't die because of covid patients. His wife died because she was sick. If the hospital thinks covid patients have priority, that's on them.
Hospitals are FOR profit. If their 15 to 40 beds are filling up for any reason, they don't have enough. That's on them.
Look at Research then look at St .Lukes. one looks like a hospital, the other a FANCY ASS OFFICE BULIDING. not a coinkydink how much the word money has been mentioned in this thread. [Reply]
Originally Posted by stevieray:
That guys wife didn't die because of covid patients. His wife died because she was sick. If the hospital thinks covid patients have priority, that's on them.
Hospitals are FOR profit. If their 15 to 40 beds are filling up for any reason, they don't have enough. That's on them.
Look at Research then look at St .Lukes. one looks like a hospital, the other a FANCY ASS OFFICE BULIDING. not a coinkydink how much the word money has been mentioned in this thread.
You need staff with special training for those beds and you can't just take some random person off the streets.
Your hospital logic does not always apply to all hospital around the world , your system is different and it just seems odd to me that doctors and hospitals are so vilified your country. [Reply]
Originally Posted by stevieray:
That guys wife didn't die because of covid patients. His wife died because she was sick. If the hospital thinks covid patients have priority, that's on them.
Hospitals are FOR profit. If their 15 to 40 beds are filling up for any reason, they don't have enough. That's on them.
Look at Research then look at St .Lukes. one looks like a hospital, the other a FANCY ASS OFFICE BULIDING. not a coinkydink how much the word money has been mentioned in this thread.
That's literally saying hospitals should have a building that sits empty for two decades, just in case there's a worldwide pandemic... and with the equipment, and standby staff (they aren't going to do anything, but just have them on payroll). I would guess most hospitals already sit at 30% empty or more the vast majority of the time. That's what they're doing in the pic you quoted... they're building a new floor. Other hospitals last year were renting out floors and buildings.
It would be like having one bad accident between Des Moines and Omaha that backs up traffic for hours, and then blaming the state and saying they should have spent millions to make the highway 8 lanes each way just for that one thing that happened.
And I'm guessing the reason they discharged his wife is because she has stage 4 cancer and in a triage situation, the hospital has to play god and determine who they're most likely to save. Hospitals might be for profit (I don't believe St. Luke's is, but whatever), but I'd say most doctors and nurses and front-line workers actually give a shit about human beings.... I've worked for greed before, but it doesn't mean I personally didn't give a shit about my job.
I would go out on a limb and say most doctors don't like playing god in that situation... and that most (well, all) doctors don't want to have to choose who stays and who goes while basically having to ignore the elephant in the room that one patient's sickness may have been completely unavoidable, but they have to go because they're sicker than the patient who's sickness was completely avoidable.
So yeah, it's easy to put on the glasses that make you see hospitals as greedy assholes and so forth, but it's actual people making decisions that impact whether people get the care they need or go home and die.... and if you're the person who chose to not get vaccinated, then run to a hospital and take someone's bed who has stage 4 cancer, you're at least a little responsible for the fact that person might die sooner or at least have even more shit to deal with because they got kicked out of the hospital. [Reply]
Originally Posted by tredadda:
You didn't really answer the question though. What would you need to see to change your stance? You are clearly skeptical, what would change that skepticism?
Probably some longterm studies by researchers without conflicts of interest. And proof that the mRNA strands break down in the body.
In the short-term, there is probably nothing that will. Too many red flags. Shaky trials. Cut corners. Blatant and intentional disregard for the scientific method by eliminating control groups. Zero liability for drug companies. Pharma’s history of suppressing negative effects in favor of product hype. The massive marketing and group-hate campaign. Silicon Valley censorship of anyone who voices concern. FB deleting a group for merely talking about side effects. CDC vastly underreporting death totals and reactions according to sworn testimony. Vaccine fact-checkers with ties to or funding from the vaccine manufacturers. Last year’s attack upon safe and effective treatments like zinc and Hcq. Honest and well-meaning individuals like Mercola and Bobby Kennedy Jr finding themselves at the top of a list called “Disinformation Dozen” and ruthlessly attacked/censored. The fact that it’s even called a vaccine when it doesn’t meet the legal, clinical or patent definition.
In February, Merriam-Webster literally changed their definition of vaccine to include “a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).” Can’t make this stuff up. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
Probably some longterm studies by researchers without conflicts of interest. And proof that the mRNA strands break down in the body.
In the short-term, probably nothing. Too many red flags. Shaky trials. Cut corners. Blatant and intentional disregard for the scientific method by eliminating control groups. Zero liability for drug companies. Pharma’s history of suppressing negative effects in favor of product hype. The massive marketing and group-hate campaign. Silicon Valley censorship of anyone who voices concern. FB deleting a group for merely talking about side effects. CDC vastly underreporting death totals and reactions according to sworn testimony. Vaccine fact-checkers with ties to or funding from the vaccine manufacturers. Last year’s attack upon safe and effective treatments like zinc and Hcq. Honest and well-meaning individuals like Mercola and Bobby Kennedy Jr finding themselves at the top of a list called “Disinformation Dozen” and ruthlessly attacked/censored. The fact that it’s even called a vaccine when it doesn’t meet the legal, clinical or patent definition.
In February, Merriam-Webster literally changed their definition of vaccine to include “a preparation of genetic material (such as a strand of synthesized messenger RNA) that is used by the cells of the body to produce an antigenic substance (such as a fragment of virus spike protein).” Can’t make this stuff up.
Think it's probably time to offer a booster dose to those in need. Extreme elderly, transplant patients etc.
Looking at the differences in studies, looks like the moderna time between doses makes a marked difference in efficacy. The UK spaced out 12 weeks and provides a really strong response. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
When did I say I’ve never used a drug or will never?
Do you really not see the difference between trusting an inhaler vs this emergency “vaccine?”
Did you consult with your doctor before taking it? if your are taking other meds were you aware of possible conflicts and were you aware of all the possible side effects . [Reply]
