***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.”

[Strongside]

Originally Posted by Monticore

Some anti body test have a high false positive .

Yeah, I know.

Regardless, the result was positive.

Some actual COVID tests themselves are somewhat inaccurate as well it seems. Doesn't mean you shouldn't get tested if you suspect you have the virus.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Mecca

Your argument yesterday was basically "I don't wanna wear one" have we lost all common sense, if something is spread with airborn particles doesn't a face covering help?

A) If you read the studies like the one I posted yesterday you would see that no, the loose edges of these masks and such are not protecting you from airborne

Which led to a very worked up Monticore to point out

B) This is not an airborne virus

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED

I just found it interesting that you left that key piece of research out. You do agree that the flu is much more deadly than coronavirus for our younger generation right? Which is where this perception is coming from.

He’s not going to acknowledge anything out there that doesn’t fit his agenda/narrative.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by petegz28

The irony is the people that want to scream this isn't a black and white thing want to lecture you for not having a black and white take on things like masks. I have read a few articles throughout all of this but I will go back to the one I posted yesterday about masks. Hamas or Monticore can speak to the actual measurements I guess.

It takes 1,000 units of the virus for a person to become infectous

And infected person expels approximately 900 units per minute from normal speaking and breathing

Masks prevent possibly up to 50% of the particles which now say takes you 900 units in 1 minute to 900 units in 2 minutes

Masks do not necessarily nor are they being alleged to prevent you from inhaling these particles. They are to prevent you from spreading not you from getting

So let's just apply some actual real world scenarios

Walking past an infected person in the grocery store will not expose you long enough to become infected as you would have to be exposed to them for over 1 minute of they are unmasked

Talking to a masked person, whether you have a mask on or not, inside of 1m of space will give you about just over 2 minutes before you start becoming infected

So as they said, the masks are not doing much good for people say in retail and you are not exposing yourself to anyone else long enough say walking through the grocery store isle to need a mask.

This is the gray area that some people both love and hate. The best thing they seem to have right now is stay 6ft away. Retail establishments need to use things like the shields and such at check out. If you have symptoms then you should be wearing a mask even though your chance of infecting someone is very minimal unless you spend several minutes talking to them within 3 ft.

So basically as many experts have said, masks are good for protecting you from someone coughing and sneezing on you and little else.

It doesn't take a medical expert to come to the conclusion that putting something over your mouth could potentially keep things out to varying degrees .

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Bugeater

That, and the reason why the US supply of masks was running so thin.

Spoiler!

(They were being sold to China)

Yep. We need to be ramping up supplies now for the fall just in case there is another outbreak. We also need to bring all this back to the US. I proposed in this very thread early on the US government should take over shuttered manufacturing plants and start using them to create PPE. It is a no brainer IMHO.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by petegz28

The irony is the people that want to scream this isn't a black and white thing want to lecture you for not having a black and white take on things like masks. I have read a few articles throughout all of this but I will go back to the one I posted yesterday about masks. Hamas or Monticore can speak to the actual measurements I guess.

It takes 1,000 units of the virus for a person to become infectous

And infected person expels approximately 900 units per minute from normal speaking and breathing

Masks prevent possibly up to 50% of the particles which now say takes you 900 units in 1 minute to 900 units in 2 minutes

Masks do not necessarily nor are they being alleged to prevent you from inhaling these particles. They are to prevent you from spreading not you from getting

So let's just apply some actual real world scenarios

Walking past an infected person in the grocery store will not expose you long enough to become infected as you would have to be exposed to them for over 1 minute of they are unmasked

Talking to a masked person, whether you have a mask on or not, inside of 1m of space will give you about just over 2 minutes before you start becoming infected

So as they said, the masks are not doing much good for people say in retail and you are not exposing yourself to anyone else long enough say walking through the grocery store isle to need a mask.

This is the gray area that some people both love and hate. The best thing they seem to have right now is stay 6ft away. Retail establishments need to use things like the shields and such at check out. If you have symptoms then you should be wearing a mask even though your chance of infecting someone is very minimal unless you spend several minutes talking to them within 3 ft.

So basically as many experts have said, masks are good for protecting you from someone coughing and sneezing on you and little else.

Beta-blockers, potassium-sparing diuretics, and ACE-Inhibitors all have a demonstrable mortality benefit in patients with heart failure whose ejection fraction is <40%. That doesn't mean that they reduce the risk of death to 0, and it doesn't mean that their use represents a gray area. There is a clear benefit: the people who take them are less likely to die than matched controls that don't.

Notice that mitigation strategies are trying to get the R0 as low as possible. They aren't designed with a goal to get it to 0.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the goal is.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Monticore

It doesn't take a medical expert to come to the conclusion that putting something over your mouth could potentially keep things out to varying degrees .

And here we go again.....keyword "potentially". And the studies show the chances of getting infected by walking past an infected person while wearing a mask and not wearing a mask are statistically the same.

The mask does what most if not all of these experts are saying, they prevent you from coughing and sneezing larger droplets onto everything.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by POND_OF_RED

I just found it interesting that you left that key piece of research out. You do agree that the flu is much more deadly than coronavirus for our younger generation right? Which is where this perception is coming from.

Point to a single piece of data that establishes that such information is the genesis of that belief.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by staylor26

He’s not going to acknowledge anything out there that doesn’t fit his agenda/narrative.

What exactly do you think my agenda is here?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Beta-blockers, potassium-sparing diuretics, and ACE-Inhibitors all have a demonstrable mortality benefit in patients with heart failure whose ejection fraction is <40%. That doesn't mean that they reduce the risk of death to 0, and it doesn't mean that their use represents a gray area. There is a clear benefit: the people who take them are less likely to die than matched controls that don't.

Notice that mitigation strategies are trying to get the R0 as low as possible. They aren't designed with a goal to get it to 0.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the goal is.

No, I don't have a misunderstanding at all. I am just posting data that you don't agree with, which is fine.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by staylor26

He’s not going to acknowledge anything out there that doesn’t fit his agenda/narrative.

It does but when you focus on things like that in an attempt to minimize COVID it can hurt the overall goal of trying to reduce the spread of it and the damage is it causing to people and the economy . Breast cancer tends to be more aggressive in younger women but we don't focus on that because we still want older ladies to get tested and treated .

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by petegz28

No, I don't have a misunderstanding at all. I am just posting data that you don't agree with, which is fine.

What does the weight of evidence say mask wearing does for a person's risk of contracting or spreading the virus?

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

What exactly do you think my agenda is here?

Doom and gloom.

Example:

Florida isn’t as bad as I wanted it to be so I’m going to roll with a conspiracy theory as to why the data doesn’t fit my narrative even though I shut down every conspiracy theory that doesn’t fit my narrative.

[POND_OF_RED]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Point to a single piece of data that establishes that such information is the genesis of that belief.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Provisiona...nd-S/9bhg-hcku

It’s really not that hard to find. It’s kind of scary that I’m just making you aware of this. Are you not using the CDC for your research?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

And here we go again.....keyword "potentially". And the studies show the chances of getting infected by walking past an infected person while wearing a mask and not wearing a mask are statistically the same.

The mask does what most if not all of these experts are saying, they prevent you from coughing and sneezing larger droplets onto everything.

So, you aren't wearing a mask and you walk past someone who has a coughing fit just then.

You are saying that a mask wouldn't stop a droplet?