***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.”

[kgrund]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Elaborate, please. Are you saying those percentages are actually lower because there are people we assume have it but haven't been tested? Or are you saying the percentages are actually higher because more people died with Covid but we didn't test them?

Can't be both.

No. What I am saying is the numbers represent of the population that were tested and tested positive, these are the death rates. What I am merely adding is that obviously the mortality rates in Kansas so far would be quite lower if you count the people that have or had it that were never tested.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

COVID causes pneumonia, pete. You have to look at both columns.

This is the point where you will initiate a 250 post debate about what the true cause of death is.

All I am saying is there are 3 distinct columns. Covid, pneumonia and covid+pnenumoia. I don't see anything that says covid induced pneumonia so I think you are making a bit of an assumption. Perhaps correctly but nonetheless and assumption. Other things cause pneumonia besides Covid. My Son has had it twice since November and never had Covid so.....

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

The numbers for the flu are understated and the CDC websight clearly tells you that.



And I am not comparing it directly to the flu, thats not what I said.

Now keep in mind this only KNOWN positives not asymptomatic or low symptom cases. Average age 81. Its not that deadly to people under 65 period.


Attachment 120550

No, you assume it's understated because you want it to be to help your argument. The CDC looks at flu deaths and extrapolates that out to a population level with confidence intervals, which is why they list upper and lower bounds. Ninety-five percent of the time those estimates will fall within those bounds. This year I believe that it is somewhere between 25K and 62K. The number that is settled on is neither an overestimate nor an underestimate, but the best calculation they have based on that data.

[staylor26]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

New York refused to release its own statistics, but @AP found hospitals released more than 4,300 coronavirus patients to already strained nursing homes under a controversial state order. https://t.co/uIoxAfmbxn

— The Associated Press (@AP) May 22, 2020

GJ NY!

I wonder how bad NY would’ve been if this simply didn’t happen.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by kgrund

No. What I am saying is the numbers represent of the population that were tested and tested positive, these are the death rates. What I am merely adding is that obviously the mortality rates in Kansas so far would be quite lower if you count the people that have or had it that were never tested.

Ah, agreed.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by staylor26

I wonder how bad NY would’ve been if this simply didn’t happen.

Or even the rest of the country? Remember when this all first started in WA one of the big spikes was because it hit a couple nursing homes?

We have 3 cluster patterns that seem to be consistent across the country. Nursing homes and assisted living places, meat packing plants and prisons.

Those by far seem to be where we have seen some of the largest clusters.

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by Pants

I'm free to have an opinion and I'm free to express it.

FTR, is questioning people's patriotism something you generally think should be expressed any old time you get the notion to?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Uh okay, so are you estimating the number if people who had the flu and basing the death rate on that but not estimating the number of people who have Covid but instead using the hard numbers and basing the death rate on that?

That seems like what you are saying and seems like it is not a fair comparison.

The CDC projects an average number of deaths for the flu every year. You can find the info on the number of people who they believe died of the flu right here:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

There is a reported number and a 95% confidence interval for each group. The listed number for each group that I gave Marcellus is pulled directly from that link.

That link also contains an estimated number of symptomatic infections (asymptomatic infections would decrease the IFR of the flu, but again, I did not include them)

Meanwhile, the CDC is also listing deaths from COVID on the site you linked. Note that I pulled deaths from the COVID side only and not from COVID+pneumonia, which would purposefully depress the numbers.

Antibody studies in the US have put prevalence at no more than 5%. Five percent of 330,000,000 is 16 million.

So, disease A has 16 million total infections and 13,000+ deaths in one cohort. Disease B has 35 million symptomatic infections and 8,000 deaths in the same cohort.

Even when I make every piece of data look artificially low for COVID, the death rate is still multiple times higher than the flu for people under 65.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by staylor26

I wonder how bad NY would’ve been if this simply didn’t happen.

Honestly PA is the same thing 70% of their deaths have took place in nursing homes.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

The CDC projects an average number of deaths for the flu every year. You can find the info on the number of people who they believe died of the flu right here:

https://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/burden/2018-2019.html

There is a reported number and a 95% confidence interval for each group. The listed number for each group that I gave Marcellus is pulled directly from that link.

That link also contains an estimated number of symptomatic infections (asymptomatic infections would decrease the IFR of the flu, but again, I did not include them)

Meanwhile, the CDC is also listing deaths from COVID on the site you linked. Note that I pulled deaths from the COVID side only and not from COVID+pneumonia, which would purposefully depress the numbers.

Antibody studies in the US have put prevalence at no more than 5%. Five percent of 330,000,000 is 16 million.

So, disease A has 16 million total infections and 13,000+ deaths in one cohort. Disease B has 35 million symptomatic infections and 8,000 deaths in the same cohort.

Even when I make every piece of data look artificially low for COVID, the death rate is still multiple times higher than the flu for people under 65.

If your point is more people over the age of 65 are dying from Covid than Influenza then I agree. My point was that according to that CDC spreadsheet that more are dying from "pneumonia" than Covid. They have a Covid+pneumonia column so I assume that means the stand alone pneumonia column means it was from something other than covid.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Releasing convalescing patients to skilled nursing facilities is a regular part of the process. It's done to free up bed space. If those patients were kept in the hospital then the hospitals would have overflowed.

Again, the devil is in the details.

The article says 1/3 of NY's deaths were in nursing homes. Louisiania, which barred COVID patients from nursing homes for 30 days, actually has a higher proportion of nursing home deaths, 40%.

Was this the right decision? I don't know--the optics are certainly bad. But it's not as cut-and-dried as the headline suggests.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Releasing convalescing patients to skilled nursing facilities is a regular part of the process. It's done to free up bed space. If those patients were kept in the hospital then the hospitals would have overflowed.

Again, the devil is in the details.

The article says 1/3 of NY's deaths were in nursing homes. Louisiania, which barred COVID patients from nursing homes for 30 days, actually has a higher proportion of nursing home deaths, 40%.

Was this the right decision? I don't know--the optics are certainly bad. But it's not as cut-and-dried as the headline suggests.

lol no

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by petegz28

If your point is more people over the age of 65 are dying from Covid than Influenza then I agree. My point was that according to that CDC spreadsheet that more are dying from "pneumonia" than Covid. They have a Covid+pneumonia column so I assume that means the stand alone pneumonia column means it was from something other than covid.

My point was neither; my point was that Marcellus' claim that this is not that deadly for those under 65 is wholly without merit and even the most generous analysis of the numbers from his perspective demonstrates that.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

Honestly PA is the same thing 70% of their deaths have took place in nursing homes.

Well the problem is the proximity in those places right? I mean what does it take to spread the virus now that the CDC has said we don't have to Clorox everything?

spreading 1,000+ units of infected particles within a 1m area

It takes about 1 minute of normal speaking and breathing to spread 900 units.

With all the required touching and stuff in nursing home I mean, that is easily done. You almost can't help but spread it. Even if you wear a mask if you spend longer than 2 minutes or so with a person you have probably put enough in the air to infect them and at close range.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Releasing convalescing patients to skilled nursing facilities is a regular part of the process. It's done to free up bed space. If those patients were kept in the hospital then the hospitals would have overflowed.

Again, the devil is in the details.

The article says 1/3 of NY's deaths were in nursing homes. Louisiania, which barred COVID patients from nursing homes for 30 days, actually has a higher proportion of nursing home deaths, 40%.

Was this the right decision? I don't know--the optics are certainly bad. But it's not as cut-and-dried as the headline suggests.

I understand where you are coming from but releasing infected people into a pit of ultra-high risk people seems to be rather self-defeating.