***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.”

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by Mecca

I had a cold in February that just hung on forever, for about 3 days I coughed a shit ton it made my ribs hurt, had chills and then I'd get hot as **** just back and forth, made my muscles sore and shit..

Then the damn thing just hung on forever, I felt better but I had remnants of it for what felt like a month.

Well if you guys want to hear some positive news I haven't gotten sick at all

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

Argh! So what flu season had a CFR of 0.1%? 2018-2019?

CDC estimates that influenza was associated with more than 35.5 million illnesses, more than 16.5 million medical visits, 490,600 hospitalizations, and 34,200 deaths during the 2018–2019 influenza season.

Yes and 2017-2018 had between 60k-80k deaths. Which gives you a figure in the .13-.17% range... which is the same for under 50 Covid-19 infections according to a couple of reports. SupDock claims it is under 35 that is .16 but I am fairly certain it is under 50 but I can go back and check in a few, although it would have little bearing on my post. Just change <50 to <35 and answer the questions posed.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

It's the 2017-2018 flu season. There is nothing "wrong" about what I posted. I berated you for being your normal prickish self after you mischaracterized what I posted.

Where is the .16 fatality rate for a bad flu season?

[petegz28]

, media just now starting to figure out millions of people losing their jobs is bad

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by SAUTO

But are those people that were using the vents?

That’s where the shortage is going to come in. It’s not all about beds.


And I quoted the wrong post. Sorry lol

Cited the ICU figures as well, where the model is also significantly out of whack. And total beds would speak to surge capacity; creates additional avenues for reallocation of scarce resources. If you don't have the beds, the number of vents, improvised or otherwise, is immaterial. And vents can travel, beds really can't. So long as you have bed capacity, you can move vents around from areas they aren't needed to create additional ICU capacity.

WTF use is this model at this point? If the 'peak resource demand' date is still accurate, then our peak demand will end up a fraction of what it's claiming. And if the peak resource date is off significantly, then we continue to make shutdown decisions based on target dates that mean nothing.

Whatever the case may be, continuing to use that damn model as though it means anything is just silly.

I'm not objecting to the use of modeling to try to make decisions, but we have got to stop leaning into bad ones (days after they're clearly wrong) because they confirmed our viewpoints when they were released.

Get a new model - the IMHE model isn't worth a damn thing.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Cited the ICU figures as well, where the model is also significantly out of whack.

WTF use is this model at this point? If the 'peak resource demand' date is still accurate, then our peak demand will end up a fraction of what it's claiming. And if the peak resource date is off significantly, then we continue to make shutdown decisions based on target dates that mean nothing.

Whatever the case may be, continuing to use that damn model as though it means anything is just silly.

I'm not objecting to the use of modeling to try to make decisions, but we have got to stop leaning into bad ones (days after they're clearly wrong) because they confirmed our viewpoints when they were released.

Get a new model - the IMHE model isn't worth a damn thing.

It does say it was last updated on the 1st and the next update is the 4th
FWIW

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Cited the ICU figures as well, where the model is also significantly out of whack. And total beds would speak to surge capacity; creates additional avenues for reallocation of scarce resources. If you don't have the beds, the number of vents, improvised or otherwise, is immaterial. And vents can travel, beds really can't. So long as you have bed capacity, you can move vents around from areas they aren't needed to create additional ICU capacity.

WTF use is this model at this point? If the 'peak resource demand' date is still accurate, then our peak demand will end up a fraction of what it's claiming. And if the peak resource date is off significantly, then we continue to make shutdown decisions based on target dates that mean nothing.

Whatever the case may be, continuing to use that damn model as though it means anything is just silly.

I'm not objecting to the use of modeling to try to make decisions, but we have got to stop leaning into bad ones (days after they're clearly wrong) because they confirmed our viewpoints when they were released.

Get a new model - the IMHE model isn't worth a damn thing.

Facts determining data instead of the other way around....

[Donger]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Yes and 2017-2018 had between 60k-80k deaths. Which gives you a figure in the .13-.17% range... which is the same for under 50 Covid-19 infections according to a couple of reports. SupDock claims it is under 35 that is .16 but I am fairly certain it is under 50 but I can go back and check in a few, although it would have little bearing on my post. Just change <50 to <35 and answer the questions posed.

45,000,000 cases and 80,000 deaths is a CFR of 0.017%, no?

Nevermind.... I suck at maths...

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Cited the ICU figures as well, where the model is also significantly out of whack. And total beds would speak to surge capacity; creates additional avenues for reallocation of scarce resources. If you don't have the beds, the number of vents, improvised or otherwise, is immaterial. And vents can travel, beds really can't. So long as you have bed capacity, you can move vents around from areas they aren't needed to create additional ICU capacity.

WTF use is this model at this point? If the 'peak resource demand' date is still accurate, then our peak demand will end up a fraction of what it's claiming. And if the peak resource date is off significantly, then we continue to make shutdown decisions based on target dates that mean nothing.

Whatever the case may be, continuing to use that damn model as though it means anything is just silly.

I'm not objecting to the use of modeling to try to make decisions, but we have got to stop leaning into bad ones (days after they're clearly wrong) because they confirmed our viewpoints when they were released.

Get a new model - the IMHE model isn't worth a damn thing.

I understand the model is out of wack but I’ll not seeing how many releases were from icu.

I’m not worried about what the model says

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by TLO

It does say it was last updated on the 1st and the next update is the 4th
FWIW

And again, why should we care at that point?

If they have to update their model every 3 days to get within a factor of 4, then they're just sticking their head out the window to tell us its raining.

They've already updated the thing once and it's still a trainwreck. There's something inherently flawed in their modeling. Don't 'update' it - scrap it.

This is akin to the efforts of Ford in the 80s to 'refresh' the failed 2nd gen mustang. What it needed was a clean-sheet rebuild.

That model is clearly built on a faulty premise. I don't know what it is because none of these people will release their source data (and I wouldn't know what to do with it anyway), but it's clearly a problem and we're still using it to make decisions.

Throw the damn thing out and start over.

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by Donger

45,000,000 cases and 80,000 deaths is a CFR of 0.017%, no?

Nevermind.... I suck at maths...

ha, you edited before I could tell you to move the decimal over one.

btw here is just one of many sources stating the ~80k number

https://www.statnews.com/2018/09/26/...deaths-winter/

you can also find many sources that say ~60k which is why I stated the range I did.

[phisherman]

Originally Posted by Strongside

My wife and I are both convinced we had this in January. Never felt anything like it. Fever, chills, aches, and a literal BURNING sensation in our lungs. We tested negative for flu and were told it was a “seasonal virus” that was going around. He grandma and grandpa came down with it after being at our house a few days before we got sick. Her grandfather got double pneumonia and was hospitalized for a week with it...again, no flu.

I am almost certain that if we took the antibodies test, we have had this thing.

Once we have proper testing for this, I have a hunch we'll find that a bunch of people have either had it or been exposed to it and have produced antibodies already.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by SAUTO

I understand the model is out of wack but I’ll not seeing how many releases were from icu.

I’m not worried about what the model says

Hmmm....

Tomahawk posted a picture of the figures 2-3 days ago, didn't he? If you could find that in this monster of a thread, you might be able to extrapolate the number of ICU patients from then to now and see a trend one direction or another.

Though I wouldn't expect to see that worm having turned just yet. Those seem to take an extra 4-6 days to resolve or an 'ordinary' admission one direction or another.

[BleedingRed]

Serology of this virus will be interesting. Alot of people were getting sick with symptoms like Corona from December through February.

If we find out in the end that millions have already had it and gotten over it, then there should be hell to pay.

I've said it from the start that I believe this would be more LIKE (that exactly) like a flu season total than a SARS or MERS. But again cat is out of the bag, but the numbers I'm seeing are encouraging.

People keep freaking about about the number of cases... And are missing the fact that millions have tested negative as well. 8/10 test come back negative right? Isn't that a good thing?

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Donger

45,000,000 cases and 80,000 deaths is a CFR of 0.017%, no?

It's 0.17, but it's near the upper bound of the 95% CI (2 sd). He's also not accounting for there being more cases which would push the CFR down or the estimate being near the lower bound of the 95% CI.

For his numbers to be true the number of cases would have to be exactly on the estimate and the CFR would have to be two standard deviations above the estimate.