***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.”

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

We have 2 hospitals and probably 15 nursing homes. I haven’t seen how many of the 12 were residents.

Our death was 44 year old women, homes had 2 cases total we got luck so far .

[Eleazar]

Originally Posted by DaFace

At its core, the issue I have is just the feeling of anti-intellectualism that "sources" like this promote. It's like that study I posted a while back where a bunch of chemists concluded that masks were super effective. They even got it published, but when the epidemiologists took a look at it, they immediately could see all of the flaws in the chemists' thinking (even if they didn't disagree with the basic premise that masks are effective).

Same deal here. I don't know who this guy is or what his qualifications are, but he seems to be taking some very complex topics, making up his own methodologies, and presenting them as indisputable fact.

My personal view on all of this is the same as it's been from the beginning: I trust the people who have spent decades of their lives trying to understand this stuff far more than people with no expertise and a calculator. That DOES NOT mean that the experts are infallible, but the chances that they'll be right are far higher than those with no expertise.

At some point, it's just an odds game. If you had to place money on the Chiefs or Dolphins winning the Super Bowl next year, who's your choice? This guy strikes me as the Bleacher Report blogger posting a hot take that the Dolphins will win it.

I can appreciate that perspective. And like I alluded to before, I posted a few of that guy's tweets here because I thought people would be interested and also to hear what other people have to say about it.

I'm not a believer or disbeliever in it at this point. Believe me, when I post something and posters like pete latch onto it while generally smart people like cdcox and hamas are skeptical, it carries weight with me. The opinions of posters who are dumb or are just poop-slingers here I couldn't care less about, but people like those guys who have substantive objections post opinions that I value.

That being said, I have always tried to play within the rules here and also within the boundaries of what people I respect here consider to be acceptable behavior. If it seems this is unwanted or derailing to the thread I don't want to bring that. Everyone knows where to find and follow this person if they are interested in hearing that perspective.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Donger

I would imagine that LBJ ICU normal percentage is not 107%

Do you have data to show that's incorrect?

I'm sorry if numbers and facts bother you.

Your ignorance of how many Hospitals Houston has and how SMALL LBJ is in comparison to the other Hospitals is showing.

Best not to comment further.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

Your ignorance of how many Hospitals Houston has and how SMALL LBJ is in comparison to the other Hospitals is showing.

Best not to comment further.

You asked. Are you saying that LBJ ICU capacity is normally 107%?

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Donger

You asked. Are you saying that LBJ ICU capacity is normally 107%?

Are you saying COVID19 makes up 107%?

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by Monticore

Our death was 44 year old women, homes had 2 cases total we got luck so far .

Just found that 11 of the deaths were 70+.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

Are you saying COVID19 makes up 107%?

No.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Donger

No.

What percentage does COVID19 make u of that 107% then? What is your estimation?

Hint: This Hospital is smack dab in the middle of the ghetto.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

What percentage does COVID19 make u of that 107% then? What is your estimation?

Hint: This Hospital is smack dab in the middle of the ghetto.

I don't know. You asked about present capacity to normal.

I pointed out that I doubt normal capacity is 107% and if you think it is. You are now dancing around not answering that question.

Think next time before you chime in, okay?

[Bob Dole]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

Are you saying COVID19 makes up 107%?

LBJ is licenses for 207 total beds. If 25% are ICU (which is unlikely), you can do the math on 107%.

That’s why I hate reports that deal in percentages. You can skew perception. “Our early registration number are up 100%!” Yeah... from 2 to 4.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

LBJ is licenses for 207 total beds. If 25% are ICU (which is unlikely), you can do the math on 107%.

That’s why I hate reports that deal in percentages. You can skew perception. “Our early registration number are up 100%!” Yeah... from 2 to 4.

Oh I know,

It's a TINY hospital, in the middle of the Ghetto of Houston. I'm just trying to walk Donger through his stupidity.


"107% O noes!"

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

Oh I know,

It's a TINY hospital, in the middle of the Ghetto of Houston. I'm just trying to walk Donger through his stupidity.


"107% O noes!"

That's the second time you've mentioned "ghetto." How come?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Bob Dole

LBJ is licenses for 207 total beds. If 25% are ICU (which is unlikely), you can do the math on 107%.

That’s why I hate reports that deal in percentages. You can skew perception. “Our early registration number are up 100%!” Yeah... from 2 to 4.

Not a big per capita guy, eh?

[Eleazar]

Is there any information available at this point about tracing? Where are these people in TX getting it, what is their living situation, are they reliant on public transit, etc

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

Your ignorance of how many Hospitals Houston has and how SMALL LBJ is in comparison to the other Hospitals is showing.

Best not to comment further.

The first article that I clicked on said those hospitals are typically pretty full, so that answered that for me.... but, there are so many other variables as well.

Both hospitals are almost always full but are now treating about 20 percent of their patients for COVID-19.

https://abc13.com/houston-icu-capaci...pital/6201846/

...if we say they're usually around 100% anyway, then based on that line they're apparently turning away 20% of non-Covid patients right now. That could mean life or death for the worst cases out there, but of course patients being rerouted isn't terribly uncommon.

I don't know what the average ICU stay is for a Covid patient versus an average ICU patient... I could see ramifications from that if it's significantly longer.... then you're turning away that percentage (and possibly greater percentages in the future) of patients for even longer, which could cause issues at other hospitals that are dealing with the same issues.

I doubt they're generally over capacity, or else that would be their actual capacity? Obviously, I don't know for sure, but I assume they've been asked to expand their number of beds, which also puts strains on supplies and people.

That's just off the top of my head as a non-healthcare person posting on a football message board....

None of that seems hair-on-fire to me, but then again, things have changed drastically in a short period of time (2-4 weeks) in other areas, so I could see why people in general and especially people in the healthcare industry would be concerned..... it doesn't necessarily mean they're fear mongering fear porn hysterical about it, but hospitals in particular have to constantly prepare for worst case scenarios on a patient-by-patient basis, and they're now having to do so on a unit-by-unit/building-by-building/county-by-county basis.

And perhaps thanks to the media and people spending hours upon hours entrenched in their opinion, it gets skewed as WE'RE ALL ****ED!!!.... when those people would just really appreciate it if people wore masks, stayed the hell away from each other at a distance of 6 feet or so, and washed their hands (and of course, there are those who think the world is actually ****ed).