***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.”

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by TLO

I wish they'd live stream the CDC meeting on vaccination prioritization.

All I know is I'm glad I'm not the one in charge of making those decisions.

I read today the feds are leaving it up to the states. I am sure that will change in late January.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I read today the feds are leaving it up to the states. I am sure that will change in late January.

I believe all the states have it broken down into groups at this point. (1a, 1b) etc. So I'm not sure what this meeting tomorrow is all about

[KCUnited]

Already posturing here. Communities "hit the hardest" and such. It's sure to be a circus of opportunity for leaders.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

There are some interesting theories on this, initially you think protect healthcare workers and first responders which makes sense.

Then its the older higher risk people, but there is another argument to be made you vaccinate the people who are out and about working and potentially spreading without knowing it before you do the people confined. Knock down the public load a fast as possible may be quicker to HI than vaccinating the older population.

This thing is so rough on the elderly, I think you gotta start there.

[KS Smitty]

Originally Posted by TLO

I wish they'd live stream the CDC meeting on vaccination prioritization.

All I know is I'm glad I'm not the one in charge of making those decisions.

I'm pretty sure it will be on one of the CSPAN channels.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by O.city

This thing is so rough on the elderly, I think you gotta start there.

I'd make it mandatory across all care facilities that receive state funding and their workers but the worker part might be hard.

Then the health care workers and teachers that want it.

Then people who have documented co-morbidities starting with the oldest to the youngest.

No one under the age of 30 unless they have a high-risk underlying.

[petegz28]

Once you get to the general population I say you start with 70+ and work your way down. I cannot see for the life of me why anyone under the age of 20 needs this vaccine unless they are at risk.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by KS Smitty

I'm pretty sure it will be on one of the CSPAN channels.

I hate to say this but the media is going to turn this into a political issue in a hurry.

[louie aguiar]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I'd make it mandatory across all care facilities that receive state funding and their workers but the worker part might be hard.

Then the health care workers and teachers that want it.

Then people who have documented co-morbidities starting with the oldest to the youngest.

No one under the age of 30 unless they have a high-risk underlying.

I would prioritize essential workers such as those working in grocery stores, pharmacies, etc before teachers. Teacher's unions are incredibly strong, though, so that will likely help push them up the list. I just hope the distribution isn't a politicized shit-show.

[dirk digler]

I hope I am wrong but this sounds like another cluster ****

The federal government is shunting to the states hard decisions about which Americans will get the limited early supplies of coronavirus vaccines — setting up a confusing patchwork of distribution plans that could create unequal access to the life-saving shots.

Federal and state officials agree that the nation’s 21 million health care workers should be first in line. But there is no consensus about how to balance the needs of other high-risk groups, including the 53 million adults aged 65 or older, 87 million essential workers and more than 100 million people with medical conditions that increase their vulnerability to the virus.

The federal government has told states that they have ultimate authority for determining who gets vaccinated first. It has also decided to allocate scarce early doses based on states’ total populations, forcing hard choices in states with a greater proportion of residents at high risk — including Black, Indigenous and Latino communities that have suffered disproportionate rates of hospitalization and death from Covid-19.

Public health experts say that could undermine already shaky public confidence in the vaccine effort, whose success depends on convincing large numbers of Americans to get immunized.

“States are going to have to pick and choose who gets the first doses,” said Josh Michaud, an associate director for global health policy at Kaiser Family Foundation who has reviewed nearly every state’s distribution plan. “It’s very obvious that states are in different places when it comes to planning and identifying who those people are.”

Moncef Slaoui, the former GlaxoSmithKline executive who leads Operation Warp Speed, the government’s vaccine accelerator, said there are no easy choices.

"I don’t expect the states to make uniform decisions,” he told POLITICO. “Some may prefer long-term care facilities or the elderly, while others may prioritize their health care workers. It would be wrong to immunize 18-year-olds first. I hope no one does that. But otherwise it’s shades of gray.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention normally lays out the guidelines for who should get priority for each vaccine, based on recommendations from a group of experts known as the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices. The panel had not been scheduled to finalize its recommendations until after the first vaccine was authorized by the FDA. But that changed abruptly over the weekend, with the panel now set to meet Tuesday to hammer out advice for the highest priority groups — health care workers and residents of nursing homes and long-term care facilities.

[Rain Man]

I think the way prioritization should work is that you build a model of life expectancy losses by demographics. You build a first-order model to look at life expectancy changes for people who get it, and then you add a second-order effect to account for their impact on others. Whoever has the biggest expected losses gets it first, and then you work down the list.

For example, you look at an 85 year-old in a nursing home. What is the likelihood of that person getting it, and how many years of life do they lose? Who can they spread it to, and how many years would those people lose?

Now you do the same thing for a health care worker. What's their likelihood of getting it, and how many years do they lose? Who can they spread it to?

Just build categories and work down the list. You can keep expanding the categories as you go to get more precision.

[suzzer99]

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/covid-1...es-2020-11-08/



This guy is in charge of distributing the vaccine as fast as the drug companies can manufacture it. He at least gives a very good interview on 60 minutes. His biggest worry is people being afraid to take it.

[notorious]

Originally Posted by O.city

Production is tough. If we wanted to have it ready to roll out to everyone now, we needed to mass produce back in July.

Economically that’s tough to make that much and it not workout but for what it is, probably would have been worth it

The ways things are right now we need to build whatever facilities are needed overnight and start pumping the vaccine out like Coca-Cola.

This is the United States FFS. The only limit to what we can do is imagination.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by notorious

The ways things are right now we need to build whatever facilities are needed overnight and start pumping the vaccine out like Coca-Cola.

This is the United States FFS. The only limit to what we can do is imagination.

There is going to be plenty of vaccine available for us here in the USA. We need to get the rest of the world vaccinated as well though.

[Kidd Lex]

Where’s the multitudes of posters coming in to say they were wrong about the vaccine being possible? It’s amazing to look back through those debates in this thread and now that the science is proven they are nowhere to be found. Some amazing stupidity on display, and now I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see those same dipshits come up with reasons not to get the vaccine....

One very cool thing (very minor compared to ending the pandemic) that I haven’t seen mentioned too much about this vaccines efficacy, the possibility of ending or shortening common colds. Could easily be cross reactive to many of the Coronavirus lines, and one has to wonder if they can use this science to create vaccines for multitudes of more serious viruses that afflict humanity.