***NON-POLITICAL COVID-19 Discussion Thread***

[JakeF]

A couple of reminders...

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.”

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

THE MATH DOES NOT ADD UP.

I'm pretty convinced that you just don't really understand math.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The same guy who yesterday had to be taught about super spreaders is now excoriating a model for ineffectiveness while also not understanding how 90% adherence leads to far, far less growth in a virus that spreads exponentially when not contained.

Consider it this way:

Medical experts told you to stay at home to limit the spread. More people stayed at home than even they anticipated. Consequently, the spread was limited far better than projected.

Yet you're pissed. That is so far beyond ****ed.

A. I am not pissed.

B. I was talking about Missouri exclusively

C. The math used in the original model doesn't add up no matter how much you want to throw irrelevant BS in my face.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by banyon

Where did you hear that?

I hadn't seen 6.5, but this says 5.7 (CI 3.8 - 8.9).

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26...DC_333-DM25287

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

C. The math used in the original model doesn't add up no matter how much you want to throw irrelevant BS in my face.

Are you just going with your gut, or have you actually crunched numbers?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'm pretty convinced that you just don't really understand math.

So you actually think the Missouri projections went from a peak of ~340 deaths per day in the original model to less than 500 total on the new model because more people practiced social distancing in a state that was one of the last to implement mandatory shelter in place a whole 2 days ago? Anyone is supposed to believe that?

Go ahead and believe that if you want but don't question my ability to understand things.

[BleedingRed]

Well in good news, at least we are not shot on beds, ICU bed, or ventilators anymore. (Atleast soon to not be short) those projections have been dropping dramatically.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Donger

Are you just going with your gut, or have you actually crunched numbers?

I mean he does have a good point about the projections being way the **** off. It's not like the shelter in place has been in place long.

340 a day to 500 total is a pretty big difference

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Donger

I don't know.

that only 50% of Americans would observe the government's stringent social distancing guidelines, the source said. That calculation was not shared widely.

Sounds like they are covering their ass.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

I mean he does have a good point about the projections being way the **** off. It's not like the shelter in place has been in place long.

340 a day to 500 total is a pretty big difference

He said that the math doesn't add up in response to the revision from 50% to 90%. So, I'm asking what math he has done that led him to that conclusion, or if its just a gut feel.

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

There is going to be some in here with sore asses but shit is going to be opening up and starting back much quicker than they expect.

Seems unclear why so many people want to stay on the panic/hysteria train.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

So you actually think the Missouri projections went from a peak of ~340 deaths per day in the original model to less than 500 total on the new model because more people practiced social distancing in a state that was one of the last to implement mandatory shelter in place a whole 2 days ago? Anyone is supposed to believe that?

Go ahead and believe that if you want but don't question my ability to understand things.

The two largest metro areas, KC and St. Louis enacted SIP long before Missouri made it mandatory statewide.

That's pretty significant.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'm pretty convinced that you just don't really understand math.

Or anything else, really.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

So you actually think the Missouri projections went from a peak of ~340 deaths per day in the original model to less than 500 total on the new model because more people practiced social distancing in a state that was one of the last to implement mandatory shelter in place a whole 2 days ago? Anyone is supposed to believe that?

Go ahead and believe that if you want but don't question my ability to understand things.

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

I mean he does have a good point about the projections being way the **** off. It's not like the shelter in place has been in place long.

340 a day to 500 total is a pretty big difference

It's just not worth the effort when you guys clearly 1) don't understand the concept of modeling and what it can and can't do and 2) don't even read the charts right. Just as a start, they never predicted 340 per day, even in the original estimate from 2 weeks ago. It was an upper bound of a confidence interval.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88

Seems unclear why so many people want to stay on the panic/hysteria train.

I am not surprised it's not clear to you at this point. Same goes for BIG_DADDY and Marcellus.

[Mecca]

Originally Posted by Pants

I am not surprised it's not clear to you at this point. Same goes for BIG_DADDY and Marcellus.

There is a huge difference in panic/hysteria and then being completely lowball and acting like this isn't shit either.

There is an appropriate place to be and the lowball shit is probably worse than panic in this regard. Downplaying something like it doesn't matter when no numbers are accurate regardless of what way they go is obtuse at best.