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:
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.
Still calling hcq safe and effective, and still saying it’s not actually a vaccine.
I think it’s funny that you criticize the research behind mRNA but do not apply the same critical eye to the HCQ studies. [Reply]
Originally Posted by SupDock:
Still calling hcq safe and effective, and still saying it’s not actually a vaccine.
I think it’s funny that you criticize the research behind mRNA but do not apply the same critical eye to the HCQ studies.
The safety of HCQ has been well-documented for over 65 years. It's probably one of the safest drugs on the market.
Using one or two studies which involved extremely high doses administered to very late stage patients to raise questions about its safety is a little disingenuous, wouldn't you say? [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.
Are you referring the guy whose wife has cancer? (You quoted a post about a parking garage...)
If so, the woman didn't die. She just wasn't allowed to get her cancer treatments. That might increase her chances of dying in the future, but it makes sense that they would have to prioritize the COVID patients who have an immediate chance of death. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
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 .
No, I didn't. I was willing to accept the massive risk of a couple puffs of Albuterol.
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
The safety of HCQ has been well-documented for over 65 years. It's probably one of the safest drugs on the market.
The fact that you posted the underlined means you really haven't looked at the side effects of HCQ. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
The safety of HCQ has been well-documented for over 65 years. It's probably one of the safest drugs on the market.
Using one or two studies which involved extremely high doses administered to very late stage patients to raise questions about its safety is a little disingenuous, wouldn't you say?
I’m a little more interested in trials demonstrating effectiveness. The safety profile matters little when the drug does not work. Not to mention, if you are giving it early to patients with few symptoms, that creates more issues as you may be giving it to patients who were never going to get very sick. If you are only giving it to high risk patients, that further skews the safety concerns. This is why we use robust clinical trials.
We’ve been through all this before, though. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
No, I didn't. I was willing to accept the massive risk of a couple puffs of Albuterol.
Where are you going with this again?
You took meds that were not prescribed for you not knowing possible side effects or contraindications which can include death without hesitation or doing your own research first , just find it odd is all . [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
The fact that you posted the underlined means you really haven't looked at the side effects of HCQ.
It's all relative. How many prescription medications can you name that don't have a laundry list of possible side effects? The bottom line is that it has a great longterm safety profile.
A possible side effect of the vaccine is death by blood clot, yet you consider it safe. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
It's all relative. How many prescription medications can you name that don't have a laundry list of possible side effects? The bottom line is that it has a great longterm safety profile.
A possible side effect of the vaccine is death by blood clot, yet you consider it safe.
If HCQ was highly effective for preventing Covid 19 hospitalization and death, we would be having a different conversation [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Are you referring the guy whose wife has cancer? (You quoted a post about a parking garage...)
If so, the woman didn't die. She just wasn't allowed to get her cancer treatments. That might increase her chances of dying in the future, but it makes sense that they would have to prioritize the COVID patients who have an immediate chance of death.
Which speaks to a different point he was not intending. Shouldn't that be more of a justification to vaccinate? The unvaccinated aren't the only ones accepting risk? If they are clogging up hospitals in ways that could have easily have been prevented, they are making it harder for non covid patients to get care. I've heard several hospitals talk about scaling down elective procedures again. Ugh. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
When i mention HCQ to my wife she cringes lol , she wouldn't want to take it .
Based on what, other than nonsensical propaganda?
Again, it's had an excellent safety profile for 65+ freaking years. It's been commonly prescribed for decades and used by millions. In many countries, it's sold over the counter.
Yet the establishment treats HCQ like IT is the experimental drug and the vaccine has the 65-year safety profile.
Why do people fall for such nonsense.
Btw, if I had Covid, I probably wouldn't use it. The natural supplement quercetin has essentially the same effect with even less risk. The point has always been that HCQ was/is irrationally suppressed and for obvious reasons. [Reply]
Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar:
It's all relative. How many prescription medications can you name that don't have a laundry list of possible side effects? The bottom line is that it has a great longterm safety profile.
A possible side effect of the vaccine is death by blood clot, yet you consider it safe.
risk of treatable blood clots CSVT
vaccine 4/1,000,000
COVID 40/1,000,000
COVID has few other potential lethal side effects. [Reply]