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 stanleychief:
Totally understand all of that, and agree. There was insufficient data to guide a lot of decisions early on. I still think vaccines are useful. However, I do have a few minor counterpoints here:
1) The vaccine I am referring to is the Janssen vaccine (Johnson and Johnson), which is not using mRNA. It's more traditional than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
2) The two articles that I linked to in my original post were written on 7/8/2021 and 7/20/2021. Granted the Delta variant is newer, but I would hope for better consistency in the publication of attention grabbing headlines. Because sadly, that is about as far as most people read these days.
I think my biggest concern is the lack of interest in knowing which vaccine I had and when. It seems like that would be critical information to have in evaluating real-world effectiveness in a vaccine. Perhaps they feel they have enough data? I dunno.
They can see which one you had and when just by looking at your medical records. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lzen:
This kind of info is why I don't believe mask mandates are helpful at all. And there are countless examples just like this one.
Well, my families direct experience may say otherwise. My daughter, 11 and in 6th grade, has had two close contacts in school so far this year and not come down with COVID either time. These were kids in her classrooms. Her school has a strict masks mandate.
The real issue with mask mandates and trying to compare states/areas is the actual mask compliance.
It has been known for a long time that masking during flu season reduces cases.
Originally Posted by penguinz:
They can see which one you had and when just by looking at your medical records.
Excellent point. I should have considered that. It is strange how many questions they ask when signing up for the test though. They asked age, ethnicity, and various other demographic questions. "Are you vaccinated?" was one of them. It seems like that would be pointless if they were joining the data with my medical record. Maybe the lab just collects that data for their own internal purposes. [Reply]
Originally Posted by stanleychief:
Totally understand all of that, and agree. There was insufficient data to guide a lot of decisions early on. I still think vaccines are useful. However, I do have a few minor counterpoints here:
1) The vaccine I am referring to is the Janssen vaccine (Johnson and Johnson), which is not using mRNA. It's more traditional than the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
2) The two articles that I linked to in my original post were written on 7/8/2021 and 7/20/2021. Granted the Delta variant is newer, but I would hope for better consistency in the publication of attention grabbing headlines. Because sadly, that is about as far as most people read these days.
I think my biggest concern is the lack of interest in knowing which vaccine I had and when. It seems like that would be critical information to have in evaluating real-world effectiveness in a vaccine. Perhaps they feel they have enough data? I dunno.
This NYT article is about a month old, but it provides a pretty good overview of what we know about J&J's effectiveness and the likelihood of booster recommendations.
Originally Posted by penguinz:
What variables are involved other than masks vs no mask? This is why it is all but pointless to post these charts.
Yeah, that's the issue. And really, it's broader issue with random schmucks on the internet looking at data and drawing conclusions without any real expertise on how to analyze it properly.
That said, I do wish that things hadn't gotten so muddled that useful information is being completely missed these days. For example, why are we still wearing cloth masks? From the beginning we knew that surgical masks for far more effective. We only wore cloth masks due to supply issue with surgical masks. Yet I'd guess 3/4ths of people out there are still wearing the cloth ones. When the story gets bogged down by "masks vs. no-masks" we completely miss information that actually could make a difference.
Now, all that said, I really don't care much about mask mandates in most situations. Vaccines make a far bigger difference than masks do. In restaurants, it seems silly since people just take them off to eat. In grocery stores, you're not around people long enough for it to matter much. It probably makes sense for indoor concert venues, movie theaters, and public transit, but that's about it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by penguinz:
What variables are involved other than masks vs no mask? This is why it is all but pointless to post these charts.
I disagree. I don't think there are any other gov't enforced variables. No lockdowns, etc. Yes, there are always going to be variables about people's behavior. But that doesn't just vary from state to state. That varies within each state. Mask mandates don't do jack. [Reply]
Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider:
Well, my families direct experience may say otherwise. My daughter, 11 and in 6th grade, has had two close contacts in school so far this year and not come down with COVID either time. These were kids in her classrooms. Her school has a strict masks mandate.
The real issue with mask mandates and trying to compare states/areas is the actual mask compliance.
It has been known for a long time that masking during flu season reduces cases.
I'll take a look at that article later. But the one thing about masks is that most people are wearing cloth masks. Those are not effective. I guess the surgical masks are what work to some extent. But, as far as I know, most people don't have access to those. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lzen:
I disagree. I don't think there are any other gov't enforced variables. No lockdowns, etc. Yes, there are always going to be variables about people's behavior. But that doesn't just vary from state to state. That varies within each state. Mask mandates don't do jack.
That's just plain false. They're not 100% effective. Everyone has known that since March of 2020. But just because something is only 30-40% effective doesn't mean it "doesn't do jack."
Now, is there a debate about how far we should go for something that is 30-40% effective when there is an alternative (vaccines) that are 90%+ effective? Sure. But painting a grey picture in black and white doesn't help anything. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Lzen:
I disagree. I don't think there are any other gov't enforced variables. No lockdowns, etc. Yes, there are always going to be variables about people's behavior. But that doesn't just vary from state to state. That varies within each state. Mask mandates don't do jack.
And this is exactly why 99% of people should not be trying to decipher what these charts and data mean.
You cannot ignore other variables. Being gov't enforced or not. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Yeah, that's the issue. And really, it's broader issue with random schmucks on the internet looking at data and drawing conclusions without any real expertise on how to analyze it properly.
That said, I do wish that things hadn't gotten so muddled that useful information is being completely missed these days. For example, why are we still wearing cloth masks? From the beginning we knew that surgical masks for far more effective. We only wore cloth masks due to supply issue with surgical masks. Yet I'd guess 3/4ths of people out there are still wearing the cloth ones. When the story gets bogged down by "masks vs. no-masks" we completely miss information that actually could make a difference.
Now, all that said, I really don't care much about mask mandates in most situations. Vaccines make a far bigger difference than masks do. In restaurants, it seems silly since people just take them off to eat. In grocery stores, you're not around people long enough for it to matter much. It probably makes sense for indoor concert venues, movie theaters, and public transit, but that's about it.
... cloth masks can be washed Mr. Richy Rich. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Katipan:
... cloth masks can be washed Mr. Richy Rich.
Sure, but it's not like the others are particularly expensive. You can get a box of 100 on Amazon for around $15. So assuming you wear one every single day, it would cost you less than $60/year. [Reply]
Originally Posted by penguinz:
And this is exactly why 99% of people should not be trying to decipher what these charts and data mean.
You cannot ignore other variables. Being gov't enforced or not.
Ok, fine. Then let me ask you a question. Do you have the same attitude when the mainstream media or the current administration presents charts to promote their view?
I think the main thing the charts I posted are trying to point out is that the powers that be are trying to prove their mask mandates are effective. And the problem is that they, like a lot of things, always cut off at a certain point so that people won't see the whole picture.
And one last thing. If you don't think these comparisons prove what he is saying then why do you suppose those lines on the graphs are practically identical? Any theories? [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
Sure, but it's not like the others are particularly expensive. You can get a box of 100 on Amazon for around $15. So assuming you wear one every single day, it would cost you less than $60/year.
Big assumption. I know of no one specifically that has to wear a mask that can make one disposable last all day.
Don't get me started on teenagers and kids. [Reply]
