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.”
My favorite Aunt died of covid yesterday. She was in her 60s and the recipient of a kidney transplant 10-15 years ago so she was on immunosuppressants. I'm not looking for sympathy but I just wanted to share with someone. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Tylerthigpen!1!:
My favorite Aunt died of covid yesterday. She was in her 60s and the recipient of a kidney transplant 10-15 years ago so she was on immunosuppressants. I'm not looking for sympathy but I just wanted to share with someone.
I just lost my favorite aunt too. Not to Covid though. I got to tell mine that I loved her about a week before she passed. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Tylerthigpen!1!:
My favorite Aunt died of covid yesterday. She was in her 60s and the recipient of a kidney transplant 10-15 years ago so she was on immunosuppressants. I'm not looking for sympathy but I just wanted to share with someone.
Originally Posted by IA_Chiefs_fan:
I just lost my favorite aunt too. Not to Covid though. I got to tell mine that I loved her about a week before she passed.
Illustrating this important issue, the current rise of hospitalizations in a large health system among vaccinated, waned vs vaccinated, boosted pic.twitter.com/3J4FgCS7AH
In some lighter news.. Pete has been banned from this thread for like 8 months. He still has 1500 posts more than the second place poster, Donger. :-) [Reply]
Kansas City, Missouri, Mayor Quinton Lucas will introduce an ordinance that would bring back masks for students in kindergarten through 12th grade.
Lucas' ordinance requires children, faculty, staff and visitors to wear a mask while inside of school buildings.
Exemptions from the mandate include children under the age of five or those with a medical condition or disability that prevents wearing a mask, among others.
The ordinance would take effect on Jan. 9 at 11:59 p.m. and run through Feb. 3, 2022.
Lucas' ordinance will be introduced for same-day adoption during the City Council meeting on Thursday. [Reply]
Originally Posted by wazu:
This is literally the first day of my son's high school career that he was allowed to walk into school without wearing a mask.
Stop and think about how fucked up that is. [Reply]
Illustrating this important issue, the current rise of hospitalizations in a large health system among vaccinated, waned vs vaccinated, boosted pic.twitter.com/3J4FgCS7AH
I may be an idiot, but I'm not following that graph. Does that mean that 88% of people with 3 shots who go to the hospital survive? And only 52% with 2 shots do? I can't figure out any way those stats make any sense... [Reply]
Originally Posted by Hawker007:
I may be an idiot, but I'm not following that graph. Does that mean that 88% of people with 3 shots who go to the hospital survive? And only 52% with 2 shots do? I can't figure out any way those stats make any sense...
It's kind of a shitty chart. Without any labels, I'd have to guess to interpret what it means.
The table is a little clearer. But it's looking at hospitalizations - not deaths. Based on that table, the original vaccinations are 52% effective at preventing hospitalizations compared to nothing (so someone who is unvaccinated is roughly 2x as likely to be hospitalized), but boosters bump the effectiveness to 88% (so someone who is unvaccinated is roughly 8x as likely to be hospitalized). [Reply]
Originally Posted by DaFace:
It's kind of a shitty chart. Without any labels, I'd have to guess to interpret what it means.
The table is a little clearer. But it's looking at hospitalizations - not deaths. Based on that table, the original vaccinations are 52% effective at preventing hospitalizations compared to nothing (so someone who is unvaccinated is roughly 2x as likely to be hospitalized), but boosters bump the effectiveness to 88% (so someone who is unvaccinated is roughly 8x as likely to be hospitalized).
Not quite.
Because the confidence interval spans 0, the effect of one shot is statistically insignificant according to that data. However, I would also add that the mixing of all vaccine manufacturers makes that data set almost worthless.
Also, I wouldn't even look at that last column at all. The hazard ratio tells you what you need to know. An unvaccinated person that is hospitalized with COVID has a hazard ratio of 1, because it is the outcome of interest. If you are less likely to be hospitalized, the hazard ratio will be somewhere between 0 and .99999 (repeating). If you are more likely to be hospitalized, the hazard ratio will be greater than one with a confidence interval that does not span one, meaning that an HR of 1.05 (CI 1.01-1.09) would indicate that you are more likely to be hospitalized, but an HR of 1.09 (CI .98-1.23) would indicate that you aren't. [Reply]
Because the confidence interval spans 0, the effect of one shot is statistically insignificant according to that data. However, I would also add that the mixing of all vaccine manufacturers makes that data set almost worthless.
Also, I wouldn't even look at that last column at all. The hazard ratio tells you what you need to know. An unvaccinated person that is hospitalized with COVID has a hazard ratio of 1, because it is the outcome of interest. If you are less likely to be hospitalized, the hazard ratio will be somewhere between 0 and .99999 (repeating). If you are more likely to be hospitalized, the hazard ratio will be greater than one with a confidence interval that does not span one, meaning that an HR of 1.05 (CI 1.01-1.09) would indicate that you are more likely to be hospitalized, but an HR of 1.09 (CI .98-1.23) would indicate that you aren't.
I realized I couldn't interpret that chart pretty early on, but now I realize that I REALLY couldn't interpret that chart. [Reply]
Because the confidence interval spans 0, the effect of one shot is statistically insignificant according to that data. However, I would also add that the mixing of all vaccine manufacturers makes that data set almost worthless.
Also, I wouldn't even look at that last column at all. The hazard ratio tells you what you need to know. An unvaccinated person that is hospitalized with COVID has a hazard ratio of 1, because it is the outcome of interest. If you are less likely to be hospitalized, the hazard ratio will be somewhere between 0 and .99999 (repeating). If you are more likely to be hospitalized, the hazard ratio will be greater than one with a confidence interval that does not span one, meaning that an HR of 1.05 (CI 1.01-1.09) would indicate that you are more likely to be hospitalized, but an HR of 1.09 (CI .98-1.23) would indicate that you aren't.
Not following. What do the 52% and 88% numbers he asked about mean if not effectiveness levels? [Reply]
