***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.”

[O.city]

Originally Posted by TLO

A couple questions for discussion/speculation -

1. Is chloroquine something that is routinely stocked in hospitals? Pharmacies? I'm assuming all available supply is going to be sent to hospitals ASAP. I just spoke to a pharmacist friend who says Hydroxychloroquine would be in hand at the hospital.

2. How long, realistically, do we have to wait to see if this works?

Hospitals would have it and or have pretty easy access to it.

Stuff will start trickling In on it but it may take a bit to have concrete stuff

[O.city]

Did any of you guys read that Chinese article I posted last night? Did some more digging around on that, i think it’s closer to what’s happening and not just hopeful.

We’re using the numbers wrong. Or moreso we don’t know all the numbers yet

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Off label means it’s not currently a known treatment for said disease iirc

So I guess I don't understand what the 'sympathetic use' exception even means. Because, y'know, I'm wholly ignorant of this.

So trying to add some stuff up here, am I correct in saying that doctors are 'approved' to prescribe any drug on this hypothetical 'list' of known treatements for a disease if that disease is diagnosed? But they're ONLY allowed to prescribe from that list unless they can find some sort of exception?

And so in this case, by utilizing the sympathetic use exception (which again, seems very open ended), they can effectively prescribe it? I mean...practically speaking given that we have no hypothetical list for a novel virus anyway, doesn't this just serve to put this ON the list, whether the FDA officially says so or not?

Is this little more than a CYA measure from the FDA that doctors are going to wink and nod at before firing these tablets out by the hundreds of thousands?

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Monticore

like using papers towels instead of toilet paper.

This... This isn't actually a bad analogy.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Did any of you guys read that Chinese article I posted last night? Did some more digging around on that, i think it’s closer to what’s happening and not just hopeful.

We’re using the numbers wrong. Or moreso we don’t know all the numbers yet

Yeah - if Wuhan's CFR was actually 1.4 of symptomatic cases....****ing hell, is Italy putting bleach in their I.V.s or something?

[DaneMcCloud]

Originally Posted by O.city

Did any of you guys read that Chinese article I posted last night? Did some more digging around on that, i think it’s closer to what’s happening and not just hopeful.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Does anyone trust China, for anything?

I most certainly do not.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by saphojunkie

I'm not overly worried about that, given two facts:

1. It's easily produced in generic form by multiple US companies.
2. By its nature, if it works, then it works to help prevent the virus from taking hold. So, while it's better to have the truly sick the first ones to receive the medication, having general populations armed with it in case of exposure/infection is not the worst thing in the world.

I imagine there's going to be a LOT of this drug produced in the next few weeks. If the French numbers are in any way accurate (90% tested negative after 6 days), then this drug would impede the over-running of medical facilities, which is what we are REALLY after.

Yeah but this just sounds like a bunch of assholes are stockpiling it. It needs to be available TODAY to people who actually need it, not sitting on top of the doomsday stash of a plastic surgeon.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So I guess I don't understand what the 'sympathetic use' exception even means. Because, y'know, I'm wholly ignorant of this.

So trying to add some stuff up here, am I correct in saying that doctors are 'approved' to prescribe any drug on this hypothetical 'list' of known treatements for a disease if that disease is confirmed? But they're ONLY allowed to prescribe from that list unless they can find some sort of exception?

And so in this case, by utilizing the sympathetic use exception (which again, seems very open ended), they can effectively prescribe it? I mean...practically speaking given that we have no hypothetical list for a novel virus anyway, doesn't this just serve to put this ON the list, whether the FDA officially says so or not?

Is this little more than a CYA measure from the FDA that doctors are going to wink and nod at before firing these tablets out by the hundreds of thousands?

I am not sure how it works i'm curious, some drugs that can have dual purpose diabetes/weight loss, depression/smoking cessation, nerve pain/sleep aid etc need to be approved for each use or just it's overall safety.

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Does anyone in the Western world trust China, for anything?

I certainly don't.

Not only no, but hell no.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Yeah - if Wuhan's CFR was actually 1.4 of symptomatic cases....****ing hell, is Italy putting bleach in their I.V.s or something?

Couple things though. Old population and such etc.

Plus it would mean they have like 20 million infected which, knowing what we’re seeing with asymptomatic cases that would make some sense

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

I've said this before and I'll say it again: Does anyone trust China, for anything?

I most certainly do not.

Not really no

But when you start adding up South Korea, Germany, Japan and the cruise ships it starts to make sense

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

So I guess I don't understand what the 'sympathetic use' exception even means. Because, y'know, I'm wholly ignorant of this.

So trying to add some stuff up here, am I correct in saying that doctors are 'approved' to prescribe any drug on this hypothetical 'list' of known treatements for a disease if that disease is diagnosed? But they're ONLY allowed to prescribe from that list unless they can find some sort of exception?

And so in this case, by utilizing the sympathetic use exception (which again, seems very open ended), they can effectively prescribe it? I mean...practically speaking given that we have no hypothetical list for a novel virus anyway, doesn't this just serve to put this ON the list, whether the FDA officially says so or not?

Is this little more than a CYA measure from the FDA that doctors are going to wink and nod at before firing these tablets out by the hundreds of thousands?

Sympathetic use in my understanding is more when you’re at the end of the line they can try anything

[TLO]

Originally Posted by O.city

Sympathetic use in my understanding is more when you’re at the end of the line they can try anything

I believe they're looking to expand the definition of that though.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

This patently false.

Only people that are showing advanced symptoms are receiving the tests, so we have no idea how many are asymptotic or are in the early stages of the disease.

It isn't false, considering that 93% of the tests are coming back negative right now people are being tested.

But there isn't a single country on earth that could test Millions within this time frame.

The USA after removing the FDA and the CDC from the problem has DRAMATICALLY ramped up its capacity for testing and processing. Again, we are a massive country that is spread out. Unlike South Korea were almost a majority live in ONE CITY.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by O.city

Sympathetic use in my understanding is more when you’re at the end of the line they can try anything

Yeah, but lines like that are never bright line and will slide really quickly. That's why I asked if it's a 'wink/nod' sorta thing. Is there a true black-letter definition of 'end of the line'? That wouldn't seem terribly likely.

Who's really going to call physicians on the carpet for it?

Is this just the FDA protecting themselves if things go completely haywire and this thing goes sideways in a month? "Hey, we told physicians not to go throwing these out all willy nilly until it was tested further. Not our fault they did it any contradiction of federal guidelines..."

It just sounds like a shifting of liability more than a true bright line cut-off.