***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.”

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by O.city

Just saying. If the people under the curve are the infections, it's not changing if you stretch it out or do it at one time. Atleast I dont' think but calculus was a long time ago.

You are exactly right. So as has been stated the entire time, the mitigation was to slow the run on the hospitals not necessarily minimize the number of people who got the infection.

If we didn't mitigate we would have had the same number of infections but probably more deaths due to lack of resources in the hospitals.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Kiimosabi

Mah freedoms

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15

YUR TAKN MUH LIBERTIES FROM MUH!

I'm sure there's some of that, but there's got to be more to it.

I think the biggest thing that people probably aren't really understanding (or caring about?) is that the mask isn't there to protect the wearer - it's to protect everyone else.

A couple weeks back I walked into the grocery store. The woman in front of me in the vestibule sneezed, covering her mouth with her hand. She then placed that hand directly onto the shopping care she was using and proceeded as if nothing were out of the ordinary.

The mask would have at least HELPED that (though no one is arguing that it's 100% effective).

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You are exactly right. So as has been stated the entire time, the mitigation was to slow the run on the hospitals not necessarily minimize the number of people who got the infection.

If we didn't mitigate we would have had the same number of infections but probably more deaths due to lack of resources in the hospitals.

no huh

/Donger

[O.city]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You are exactly right. So as has been stated the entire time, the mitigation was to slow the run on the hospitals not necessarily minimize the number of people who got the infection.

If we didn't mitigate we would have had the same number of infections but probably more deaths due to lack of resources in the hospitals.

I think it would be a 2nd order thing by slowing the infections you could avoid some?

[O.city]

All this talk about major changes and how different things will be post Corona.

I'm not sure I see it.

If you slowly start opening up and things don't go haywire, you'll just continue easing into it. If it continues to not explode, wouldn't theoretically you get back to "normal" and as long as no explosions, be ok?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'm sure there's some of that, but there's got to be more to it.

I think the biggest thing that people probably aren't really understanding (or caring about?) is that the mask isn't there to protect the wearer - it's to protect everyone else.

A couple weeks back I walked into the grocery store. The woman in front of me in the vestibule sneezed, covering her mouth with her hand. She then placed that hand directly onto the shopping care she was using and proceeded as if nothing were out of the ordinary.

The mask would have at least HELPED that (though no one is arguing that it's 100% effective).

9:32 am - myself + other journalists here are being harassed for wearing masks.

One man says: “It’s submission, it’s muzzling yourself, it looks weak - especially for men.”

We’re being accused of fear-mongering, not knowing anything + being “pieces of shit.”

🤗🤗@azcentral

— BrieAnna J. Frank 🌵 (@brieannafrank) May 5, 2020

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You are exactly right. So as has been stated the entire time, the mitigation was to slow the run on the hospitals not necessarily minimize the number of people who got the infection.

If we didn't mitigate we would have had the same number of infections but probably more deaths due to lack of resources in the hospitals.

The possible caveat here is that it's only the same if the curve eventually encompasses everyone. If we buy time until a vaccine is widely available, there's a chunk of people who never end up "under the curve" at all.

If we knew 100% that we'd have a vaccine universally available in July, I have to imagine that most people would be OK with keeping many restrictions in place until then. If it's December, that gets iffy. And if it's 2022, I think most would agree that's not sustainable.

It just sucks how much we don't know about any of this. It's been a wake up call for how much we really know about disease prevention, that's for sure.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by O.city

All this talk about major changes and how different things will be post Corona.

I'm not sure I see it.

If you slowly start opening up and things don't go haywire, you'll just continue easing into it. If it continues to not explode, wouldn't theoretically you get back to "normal" and as long as no explosions, be ok?

For some of us it would be. Honestly I'm in the camp that it has been here much longer than we know about.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You are exactly right. So as has been stated the entire time, the mitigation was to slow the run on the hospitals not necessarily minimize the number of people who got the infection.

If we didn't mitigate we would have had the same number of infections but probably more deaths due to lack of resources in the hospitals.

It was both, actually. If you don't get infected, you don't go to the hospital. And you don't die from it.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

no huh

/Donger

One of the things that this thing has really cemented for me is that common sense isn't.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by O.city

I think it would be a 2nd order thing by slowing the infections you could avoid some?

Possibly but that isn't the primary reason to do it

If individuals and communities take steps to slow the virus’s spread, that means the number of cases of COVID-19 will stretch out across a longer period of time. As the curve shows, the number of cases at any given time doesn’t cross the dotted line of the capacity of our nation’s health care system to help everyone who’s very sick.

https://healthblog.uofmhealth.org/we...w-can-you-help


So you are trading a run on the hospitals which could possibly generate in more deaths because of a lack of resources to stringing it out.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by OnTheWarpath15

9:32 am - myself + other journalists here are being harassed for wearing masks.

One man says: “It’s submission, it’s muzzling yourself, it looks weak - especially for men.”

We’re being accused of fear-mongering, not knowing anything + being “pieces of shit.”

����@azcentral

— BrieAnna J. Frank �� (@brieannafrank) May 5, 2020

Masks just need to become fashion accessory like a ball cap. I'm more than happy to wear my Chiefs masks around here, but I get why people wouldn't really like wearing the ones that are just black or that were made with flowery scraps of fabric that someone had lying around the house.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

It was both, actually. If you don't get infected, you don't go to the hospital. And you don't die from it.

You can't hide from it, Donger. Not unless you intend to live the rest of your life in a plastic bubble.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Hot dogs? Rarely. Popsicles and any thing with sugar? Never.

There's a great pizza place in Hollywood that not only bakes great pizza but does Take & Bake as well. We purchased from there 5 times last year and I probably had close to 10 pieces all year.

We're chicken, fish, vegetable and fruit people. I replaced eggs with egg whites way back in 2008 and try to eat 4 avocados a week and a green apple every day. My biggest "vice" is chips and salsa, although I've really cut back in the past 20 months or so to maybe once every 10-12 days.

Diet is directly related to health, which is probably why I haven't been sick with a cold or flu since 2015, even with kids in preschool, elementary and middle school during that time.

Those are all fresh foods. Kind of a strange position from which to ridicule the starvation potential of a lack of double Wendy w/cheese, when it's premised on the total lack of fresh beef available.

Unless you anticipate a seamless transition to canned stores and bulk dry staples.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You are exactly right. So as has been stated the entire time, the mitigation was to slow the run on the hospitals not necessarily minimize the number of people who got the infection.

If we didn't mitigate we would have had the same number of infections but probably more deaths due to lack of resources in the hospitals.

no we wouldnt.


mitigation has slowed the number of infections. its common sense.