***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.”

[tk13]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88

Just an FYI that he’s posted more substantive information in this thread than you have in the past 10 years.

That's pretty good considering you've been butchering statistics in this thread for about 3 weeks.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Monticore

I think they were just needling each other.

Yep

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by TLO

Yep

The obvious eludes him once again.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

In the same way Singapore was. A pause doesn't mean an end. And R0 below 2 prevents exponential growth and eventually that will yield a long-term decline provided that there is acquired immunity. It becomes 'de facto' social distancing. And with any set of numbers there will be peaks and valleys, but you don't need an R0 below zero for a negative trendline. Again, we've seen enormous declines in incidents of HIV/AIDS over the years, beginning most clearly in the early/mid 90s. Yet we've never had an R0 below 1 for it. It's declined because it was below 2 and inside those trends have been small peaks/valleys.



Sure, but that doesn't speak to the fact that within those specific test groups those peaks have been ripped backwards with little internal logic.



Sure - doesn't change the fact that the initial efforts were throwing darts at a wall and then drawing circles around them.

We've had plateaus for HIV/AIDS because treatment reduces infectiousness, condoms prevent transmission, and the R0 was based upon the virus itself unmitigated. When people are on antiretroviral therapy, use PrEP, or use condoms, the R0 drops.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The imperial model was a series of levels of compliance and the correlation was the same throughout - that flattening a curve pushed it out. So where's the logic there?

If you increase compliance you can reach a threshold where R0 can be reduced to the point where the epidemic cannot sustain itself. It's no different than other assumptions in medicine--a guy that watches his diet and takes his metformin as scheduled will have a lower A1C than someone that is only 50% compliant with their diet and medication.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by eDave

I never really cared for bacon.

your a monster. I’ve never really knew you.

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by tk13

That's pretty good considering you've been butchering statistics in this thread for about 3 weeks.

Provide an example of a statistic that I have “butchered” in this thread.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by TLO

From the MO DHSS website:

Missouri numbers yesterday

Cases in Missouri: 3,037

Total Deaths: 53

Patients tested in Missouri (by all labs): approximately 33,820

Missouri numbers today


Cases in Missouri: 3,327

Total Deaths: 58

Patients tested in Missouri (by all labs): approximately 33,820 (not yet updated for April 8th)

This seems to contrast with some of the numbers on like worldomoters as far as deaths go?

Originally Posted by dirk digler

IHME predicted 7 deaths today so not to far off.

Originally Posted by TLO

I'm curious why other sites have our death total listed much higher. I tend to trust the DHSS website, but IDK?

Anyone care to speculate on this? Are covidly and worldomoters typically accurate in comparison to other sites?

[mlyonsd]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

your a monster. I’ve never really knew you.

Has to be an alien.

[Dartgod]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

your a monster. I’ve never really knew you.

We're having a discussion in the mod lounge on what type of punishment to mete out for that post.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88

Just an FYI that he’s posted more substantive information in this thread than you have in the past 10 years.

You just be the real life of the party

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

No - they simply hadn't had their story written yet.

Again, this is the problem with a presumption that putting the brakes on immediately is the answer. It doesn't help you win the battle - it just pauses it.

And in so doing, you're stopping an organic progression that could allow hot spots to emerge and be addressed sequentially - you're forcing everyone onto the same timeline in the hopes that an intervening factor emerges in the interim.

The problem is with the presumption that the most draconian efforts were the best for long-term outcomes. That fast was inherently 'good'.

Not sure this is true. Singapore had been through this before with SARS. It wasnt just the lockdown flattening the curve but also the aggressive tracking of the virus which has helped them.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by Dartgod

We're having a discussion in the mod lounge on what type of punishment to mete out for that post.

The only time in my life I ever told a women she smelled good was after she had fried up some bacon at home for lunch.

There have been a lot of dumb posts on CP but that has to be a top ten for sure.

[Titty Meat]

The pads are poppin in here today. You can tell the lockdown is taking a toll and people are taking it out on eachother lol

[eDave]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

The pads are poppin in here today. You can tell the lockdown is taking a toll and people are taking it out on eachother lol

For sure. Which is exactly what this virus wants.

This virus thinks. This virus feels. This virus is concerned with self perservation. Which is great because it means we won't ALL die.

Happy Easter.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

We've had plateaus for HIV/AIDS because treatment reduces infectiousness, condoms prevent transmission, and the R0 was based upon the virus itself unmitigated. When people are on antiretroviral therapy, use PrEP, or use condoms, the R0 drops.

Absolutely - but not below 1. It's dropped without dying off. It doesn't HAVE to get below 1 to drop. That's all I'm saying - you seem to be suggesting that declines or peaks/valleys are evidence of an inexorable march towards an R0 below 1 - I'm saying we've seen it in a myriad of instances for a myriad of reasons and the end result is virtually never an R0 below 1. Doesn't mean there aren't gains and that they shouldn't be pursued - but an organic die-off isn't the likely scenario at all. Especially not when you consider the global scale and long-term requirements associated w/ a wide enough R0 below 1 to matter in the end (even presuming spread could be reduced that far on smaller levels over shorter timelines).

If you increase compliance you can reach a threshold where R0 can be reduced to the point where the epidemic cannot sustain itself. It's no different than other assumptions in medicine--a guy that watches his diet and takes his metformin as scheduled will have a lower A1C than someone that is only 50% compliant with their diet and medication.

And I again say that this works fine on a spreadsheet and will not work in real life. Because it simply never has for a disease that has gotten this far afield.

I'm not even saying the first 90% of the climb will be impossible (though I expect it'll be damn hard; far beyond what humanity writ large will be willing to endure for the period of time they'll be asked to endure it). I'm saying that last 10% will be. The only way it's truly viable in the real world (as you have been fond of pointing out the difference between in vivo and in vitro results) is if it turns out that the 'moderated' social distancing measures being kicked around by the CDC yield a reduction to that level. I don't actually think they will, but they're at least semi-enforceable over a long enough timeline to actually matter.