***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.”

[Otter]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

Chicago is trying to mandate it for city workers, the 3rd largest employer in the city, and at least one union is already threatening to take it to court.

Do you know if the union is pro vax or anti vax being mandated?

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Otter

• Hipaa laws
• Involuntary treatment cases of the past forced medical procedures being taken into account
• Religious beliefs
• Human rights
• Lawyers looking for deep pockets

It's a pretty long list.

My law background consists of a business law class during my undergraduate days so I'm spit balling but I have trouble seeing lawsuits not produced from employers trying to enforce employees having something injected into their body.

It's not covered under HIPAA, as HIPAA only applies to covered entities (hospitals, etc.) in terms of the release of medical information.

There might be some gray area between the right to get vaccinated and the right to refuse employment or services on that basis, but my feeling is the former wouldn't apply to the latter.

I'm sure you're completely right in that people will sue though.

[KCUnited]

Originally Posted by Otter

Do you know if the union is pro vax or anti vax being mandated?

They want to mandate all city workers be vaccinate, the police union is vowing to fight it.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Otter

What countries are left when the entire world is exporting manufacturing?

Bring it home, then develop India.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

They want to mandate all city workers be vaccinate, the police union is vowing to fight it.

This is my gray area. I'm vaccinated BTW.

I just don't like the idea of your employer being able to enforce you inject something into your body.

[KCUnited]

Originally Posted by Otter

This is my grey area. I'm vaccinated BTW.

I just don't like the idea of your employer being able to enforce you inject something into your body.

They can't but they might be able to choose whether or not to employee you. Especially a public facing position like police. I guess we'll find out.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

It's not covered under HIPAA, as HIPAA only applies to covered entities (hospitals, etc.) in terms of the release of medical information.

There might be some gray area between the right to get vaccinated and the right to refuse employment or services on that basis, but my feeling is the former wouldn't apply to the latter.

I'm sure you're completely right in that people will sue though.

How do you prove vaccination if the employer doesn't have access to your medical records?

Photoshop and a $300 Brother printer can produce just about anything in paper or JPG.

I'd imagine you're shifting the responsibility when presenting false info but it's a messy path.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

They can't but they might be able to choose whether or not to employee you.

Exactly. And hospitals have been doing this with flu shots, TB, etc for years... even if you're not employed by them.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

They can't but they might be able to choose whether or not to employee you. Especially a public facing position like police. I guess we'll find out.

I would pretty much expect that any employer offering health insurance would soon be requiring proof of vaccination for that, even if the person works from home.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Otter

How do you prove vaccination if the employer doesn't have access to your medical records?

Photoshop and a $300 Brother printer can produce just about anything in paper or JPG.

I'd imagine you're shifting the responsibility when presenting false info but it's a messy path.

They'll probably end up using something like the Clear app, which validates against registries and has you upload a DL pic to validates your identity.

I personally hate having my info in a database that's just waiting to be hacked (and you can't even delete your own info from it), but I assume that's what's coming.

And the card was the dumbest, laziest, shortsightingly thing they could have done.... even if they just wanted them easily printed out for the initial onslaught of vaccinations, they could have at least looped back to make something a bit more official and harder to duplicate.

[KCUnited]

Originally Posted by wazu

I would pretty much expect that any employer offering health insurance would soon be requiring proof of vaccination for that, even if the person works from home.

Outside of ADA, if immunocompromised applies there, I tend to agree.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by Otter

How do you prove vaccination if the employer doesn't have access to your medical records?

Photoshop and a $300 Brother printer can produce just about anything in paper or JPG.

I'd imagine you're shifting the responsibility when presenting false info but it's a messy path.

Employee would have to provide it and I assume forging documents would be grounds for termination. I just tell my doctor to send proof/letter to the health nurse every year.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Otter

How do you prove vaccination if the employer doesn't have access to your medical records?

Photoshop and a $300 Brother printer can produce just about anything in paper or JPG.

I'd imagine you're shifting the responsibility when presenting false info but it's a messy path.

While it's not a universal standard, my employer requires vaccines for those in the office, and you have to verify through the CLEAR app. You scan your drivers' license, scan your face to verify you're not using someone else's ID, and scan your vaccine card. It cross-references the info on your vaccine card against the state's registry to verify.

When you use it (at your employer or at a sporting event), you scan your face again, and it generates a bar code that can be scanned. As far as I know (though I'm not sure), the only info transmitted to the employer/facility is just "Yep, this person is verified," rather than any actual info about the vaccine itself.

My guess is that places that want to be super precise about it will end up going that direction. It's what the Raiders are planning to use as well FWIW.

That said, I'm sure some will just ask for the vax card and accept that some people will try and cheat. While that sucks, the goal is to dramatically reduce the exposure. Complete elimination of exposure is pretty tough.

[KCUnited]

CHICAGO — All city of Chicago workers must be fully vaccinated by Oct. 15, though employees can apply for medical or religious exemption, Mayor Lori Lightfoot announced Wednesday.

[...]

Workers who wish to be exempt for medical or religious reasons must get approval from the Department of Human Resources, which will consider the requests on a case by case basis, the city said.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/chicago-w...182600723.html

[Otter]

Originally Posted by DaFace

While it's not a universal standard, my employer requires vaccines for those in the office, and you have to verify through the CLEAR app. You scan your drivers' license, scan your face to verify you're not using someone else's ID, and scan your vaccine card. It cross-references the info on your vaccine card against the state's registry to verify.

When you use it (at your employer or at a sporting event), you scan your face again, and it generates a bar code that can be scanned. As far as I know (though I'm not sure), the only info transmitted to the employer/facility is just "Yep, this person is verified," rather than any actual info about the vaccine itself.

My guess is that places that want to be super precise about it will end up going that direction. It's what the Raiders are planning to use as well FWIW.

That said, I'm sure some will just ask for the vax card and accept that some people will try and cheat. While that sucks, the goal is to dramatically reduce the exposure. Complete elimination of exposure is pretty tough.

Let's say you were employed with this entity for multiple years and they threatened to or fired you because you didn't want to comply.

I should have been a lawyer.