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 penguinz:
You are one of the people here that read articles and watch videos and think you are doing research. All you are doing is reading or watching. That is not research.
At the end of the day, whatever the collective reasons for reducing capacity the media has never mentioned these reductions and instead screamed about how we were close to the edge here and there over and over.
Seems like if hospital capacity was a national issue blinking red it was something the Federal government and states could have fixed by now if they wanted to.
But it does feel better to roll out fake stories about people overdosing on Ivermectin and crowding hospitals then the reality.
So maybe specialists are getting cut because of the beds going to covid? Is that the theory? What other reasons would cause elective surgery specialists to get cut?
Or maybe the theory could be true if people are putting off elective surgeries because they don't want to go to the hospital. What do you think is true? [Reply]
Originally Posted by penguinz:
You are one of the people here that read articles and watch videos and think you are doing research. All you are doing is reading or watching. That is not research.
No one here is doing actual research.
There is a reason why most medical professions have a large practical component, the first thing you are told once you get into a hospital setting is pretty much forget what you learned/read at school , the didactic part is to help you pass your exams the practical part is so you don't actually suck at doing your job. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
So maybe specialists are getting cut because of the beds going to covid? Is that the theory? What other reasons would cause elective surgery specialists to get cut?
No. The elective surgeries didn't happen for a while because hospitals needed the room for Covid patients that never arrived in the numbers projected.
(See Neil Ferguson. Cuomo said the models were wrong. He meant the hospital number projections too). [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
No. The elective surgeries didn't happen for a while because hospitals needed the room for Covid patients that never arrived in the numbers projected.
(See Neil Ferguson. Cuomo said the models were wrong. He meant the hospital number projections too).
So are the elective surgery figures surging now? It seems like those people and services would be in demand if there's capacity now. [Reply]
At the end of the day, whatever the collective reasons for reducing capacity the media has never mentioned these reductions and instead screamed about how we were close to the edge here and there over and over.
Seems like if hospital capacity was a national issue blinking red it was something the Federal government and states could have fixed by now if they wanted to.
But it does feel better to roll out fake stories about people overdosing on Ivermectin and crowding hospitals then the reality.
It's never been a national issue in terms of hospital capacity everywhere all at the same time and I've never seen it phrased that way.... but, I do agree that if some hospitals are lowering capacity due to less demand that could be attributed to vaccination rates, it would be beneficial to publicize that.
Even if they expect capacity to rise again in the winter, the message of "hey look at this town with a high rate of vaccinations that's out of the woods" would be good for other parts of the country to hear. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
So are the elective surgery figures surging now? It seems like those people and services would be in demand if there's capacity now.
Have no idea.
What's interesting is if you look at the 2nd slide, the Covid surge in Winter 2021 in Massachusetts barely moves the total ICU number up. [Reply]
What's interesting is if you look at the 2nd slide, the Covid surge in Winter 2021 in Massachusetts barely moves the total ICU number up.
Second slide of what? I arrived late to the conversation.
And I'll go on record that I'm pro-vaccine and am a cautious guy by nature, so we might have different viewpoints right now, but I'd just like to understand yours better.
So you're seeing that Massachusetts cut their ICU staff capacity (and beds) in late 2020, and the ICU number during the surge didn't move their bed numbers up.
My first theory when I hear that is that they might have ramped up capacity in anticipation of increased hospitalizations, and then ramped back down if they didn't occur. This would seem reasonable to me since it would reduce an expense. I could see this happening more than cutting elective surgery capacity, because my limited experience doing market research for hospitals tells me that they're very business-driven. They're not going to cut capacity if there's pent-up demand in an area.
Would you agree that my theory is plausible? If not, why not?
If so, then we come down to the question of why they didn't need their extra ICU capacity. That would argue that the covid cases weren't as severe as expected, or there weren't as many. (I guess another theory is that if it was more severe and people died quickly, but I don't think the facts back that up.)
Oh, or I guess another theory could be that they're better able to treat cases and get people out of the hospitals more quickly.
What seems most logical? Or is there something I'm missing? [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Second slide of what? I arrived late to the conversation.
And I'll go on record that I'm pro-vaccine and am a cautious guy by nature, so we might have different viewpoints right now, but I'd just like to understand yours better.
So you're seeing that Massachusetts cut their ICU staff capacity (and beds) in late 2020, and the ICU number during the surge didn't move their bed numbers up.
My first theory when I hear that is that they might have ramped up capacity in anticipation of increased hospitalizations, and then ramped back down if they didn't occur. This would seem reasonable to me since it would reduce an expense. I could see this happening more than cutting elective surgery capacity, because my limited experience doing market research for hospitals tells me that they're very business-driven. They're not going to cut capacity if there's pent-up demand in an area.
Would you agree that my theory is plausible? If not, why not?
If so, then we come down to the question of why they didn't need their extra ICU capacity. That would argue that the covid cases weren't as severe as expected, or there weren't as many. (I guess another theory is that if it was more severe and people died quickly, but I don't think the facts back that up.)
Oh, or I guess another theory could be that they're better able to treat cases and get people out of the hospitals more quickly.
What seems most logical? Or is there something I'm missing?
No, I think what you said makes sense, specifically:
experience doing market research for hospitals tells me that they're very business-driven. They're not going to cut capacity if there's pent-up demand in an area.
So ultimately, they already knew what they could handle based on Covid wave 1 and actually knew what they needed for season 2. Hospitals operate for profit so they don't want all this excess unused capacity. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
Second slide of what? I arrived late to the conversation.
And I'll go on record that I'm pro-vaccine and am a cautious guy by nature, so we might have different viewpoints right now, but I'd just like to understand yours better.
So you're seeing that Massachusetts cut their ICU staff capacity (and beds) in late 2020, and the ICU number during the surge didn't move their bed numbers up.
My first theory when I hear that is that they might have ramped up capacity in anticipation of increased hospitalizations, and then ramped back down if they didn't occur. This would seem reasonable to me since it would reduce an expense. I could see this happening more than cutting elective surgery capacity, because my limited experience doing market research for hospitals tells me that they're very business-driven. They're not going to cut capacity if there's pent-up demand in an area.
Would you agree that my theory is plausible? If not, why not?
If so, then we come down to the question of why they didn't need their extra ICU capacity. That would argue that the covid cases weren't as severe as expected, or there weren't as many. (I guess another theory is that if it was more severe and people died quickly, but I don't think the facts back that up.)
Oh, or I guess another theory could be that they're better able to treat cases and get people out of the hospitals more quickly.
What seems most logical? Or is there something I'm missing?
You are wasting your time. If it does not fit what he wants to believe he won’t read or consider it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Bearcat:
The internet seems to think that's false... the order itself says vaguely "unless exempt under law" and found this bit...
Again there is no test out option. You can't just say it's against my religion and call it good. Religious exceptions just don't work like that. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Nirvana58:
Again there is no test out option. You can't just say it's against my religion and call it good. Religious exceptions just don't work like that.
So are you quitting or giving in and getting the vaccine? [Reply]
