***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 Discuss Thrower

Wasn't this known long before C-19 became a 'thing'?

One would think so

[O.city]

It seems the biggest issue the US has with a pandemic is we’re so damn big and slow moving it’s hard to pivot very quickly.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Didn't another assisted living center around the area get hard again?

I think so, which would in theory explain the rise in hospitalizations. But nobody will talk about that.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

One would think so

So there really isn't a reason to pursue quicker, less sensitive tests then if the limitations of PCR in general weren't already established..

[Chris Meck]

Originally Posted by O.city

It seems the biggest issue the US has with a pandemic is we’re so damn big and slow moving it’s hard to pivot very quickly.

It'd be helpful if we'd actually try.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

So there really isn't a reason to pursue quicker, less sensitive tests then if the limitations of PCR in general weren't already established..

That makes no sense

[kgrund]

hhttps://www.cebm.net/covid-19/infec...sult-covid-19/

The above further speaks to the flaws in the PCR test and suggest only by calibrating the test to be far less sensitive would it be truly useful for what many would think it should be telling us.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

That makes no sense

It makes no sense to have a test that isn't perfect but will signal that someone who might have some or no symptoms needs a PCR test within 30 minutes of of an initial test administration to confirm whether or not they're actually infected with C-19?

[Demonpenz]

stop with the boring shit. Someone wake up pete and donger to fight or something

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

It makes no sense to have a test that isn't perfect but will signal that someone who might have some or no symptoms needs a PCR test within 30 minutes of of an initial test administration to confirm whether or not they're actually infected with C-19?

The issue is a pcr test doesn’t necessarily tell you if you are actively infected or not. It’s detecting viral rna which you can shed up to 3 months post infection.

So it’s too specific in catching stuff which is great as a diagnostic tool but not great in that it doesn’t really tell you if you are actively infected or not or if you’re infectious as we now know (and have always) that you’re the most infectious at high titers.

The antigen test actually works better imo for what we need right now

[dirk digler]

Since we seeing more schools get infections\spreads especially in Georgia a teacher from Olathe has created a spreadsheet to keep track of it all.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Dr_8u9KF_LlgI#

[O.city]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Since we seeing more schools get infections\spreads especially in Georgia a teacher from Olathe has created a spreadsheet to keep track of it all.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...Dr_8u9KF_LlgI#

This is just fear mongering bullshit

Some people don’t want real answers or real research they just wanna do this kind of thing

[jdubya]

Originally Posted by loochy

wut

The covid test station here in my county in NorCal are nasal/nostril swabs......not the ones that go way back that feel like brain ticklers. The test station we went to also made a crack that in a few weeks the tests will consist of spitting on a piece of paper with instant results.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by O.city

This is just fear mongering bullshit

Some people don’t want real answers or real research they just wanna do this kind of thing

I don't think so it is to provide a central place to inform the public.

You can read the teacher's reasoning here.

https://www.newsweek.com/tracking-co...chools-1526522

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

The issue is a pcr test doesn’t necessarily tell you if you are actively infected or not. It’s detecting viral rna which you can shed up to 3 months post infection.

So it’s too specific in catching stuff which is great as a diagnostic tool but not great in that it doesn’t really tell you if you are actively infected or not or if you’re infectious as we now know (and have always) that you’re the most infectious at high titers.

The antigen test actually works better imo for what we need right now

I get that a PCR test will correctly identify what you are looking for but not exactly give you a time for when that positive identification mattered as it pertained to determining the spread of infection.

But beside the scientific limitations of coming up with something quicker, it doesn't seem to me that the public health apparatus has decided we need something quicker than PCR.