***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.”

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Now, if I have no symptoms and the person I work next to tests positive then I think I should go get a test, I agree.

I think that is what we are all saying except Marcellus would say don't get the test. I disagree.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I think that is what we are all saying except Marcellus would say don't get the test. I disagree.

The CDC used to agree with that, too.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I think that is what we are all saying except Marcellus would say don't get the test. I disagree.

I think at that point it's a matter of personal choice. I see his side of it and don't necessarily disagree.

Do you think there might possibly be a chance that as bad as Covid is that it isn't as bad as we think or are making it out to be? I mean there is a lot of room between worse than the flu and you're dead.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

The CDC used to agree with that, too.

And Fauci used to say don't wear a mask.....what's your point? NM. Back to iggy with you.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

And Fauci used to say don't wear a mask.....what's your point? NM. Back to iggy with you.

Yes, he said that when we only had a few cases and community spread wasn't confirmed yet. That's what changed.

So, what prompted the change for the CDC?

Oh, and:

[O.city]

Originally Posted by petegz28

What you are posing is that everyone get tested everyday regardless of symptoms when you get down to it.

Now, if I have no symptoms and the person I work next to tests positive then I think I should go get a test, I agree.

But if I am not showing any symptoms and I may have possibly been exposed then yeah practically speaking it's a waste.

This is all about testing exposures. There's no need to test people who haven't been exposed.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I think at that point it's a matter of personal choice. I see his side of it and don't necessarily disagree.

Do you think there might possibly be a chance that as bad as Covid is that it isn't as bad as we think or are making it out to be? I mean there is a lot of room between worse than the flu and you're dead.

In the scenario you laid out if you didn't get the test would you interact differently around people vs knowing you were positive or not? Would you quarantine?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by O.city

This is all about testing exposures. There's no need to test people who haven't been exposed.

Mass testing and then contact tracing those positives to see if they caused a spread makes much more sense than just testing people who were possibly exposed and are asymptomatic.

Once a person is a potential exposure they get quarantined right, so odds are they aren't going to spread it to anyone regardless of being asymptomatic or not. The test means very little if you are trying to track asymptomatic spread. You can only figure that out if the people asymptomatic are actually not quarantined and walking around spreading it (potentially). You will only find those people via mass testing.

Does that make sense?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Mass testing and then contact tracing those positives to see if they caused a spread makes much more sense than just testing people who were possibly exposed and are asymptomatic.

Once a person is a potential exposure they get quarantined right, so odds are they aren't going to spread it to anyone regardless of being asymptomatic or not. The test means very little if you are trying to track asymptomatic spread. You can only figure that out if the people asymptomatic are actually not quarantined and walking around spreading it (potentially). You will only find those people via mass testing.

Does that make sense?

If you don't test them and just assume they're positive and quarantine them, you can't sufficiently track anything. The test is the only way you would know.

The problem with what you're saying and doing it is the time of testing turnover etc. If you could test and know quickly, it woudln't be a problem.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

In the scenario you laid out if you didn't get the test would you interact differently around people vs knowing you were positive or not? Would you quarantine?

Depends on the exact situation. If someone in my building got it I probably wouldn't. If someone I work with closely and regularly did I would consider it moreso sure.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by O.city

If you don't test them and just assume they're positive and quarantine them, you can't sufficiently track anything. The test is the only way you would know.

The problem with what you're saying and doing it is the time of testing turnover etc. If you could test and know quickly, it woudln't be a problem.

You cant track anything anyway if they are quarantined. You started this conversation talking about being able to track asymptomatic spread did you not?

Originally Posted by O.city

If asymptomatic people are spreading, we need to know who's positive even if not showing symptoms.

I'm skeptical they're really spreading it that much, but thats the idea behind mass testing. Gotta know where it's at.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

You cant track anything anyway if they are quarantined. You started this conversation talking about being able to track asymptomatic spread did you not?

If you don't test, you're potentially quarantining people who don't need to be though.

If you automatically quarantine anyone who's had known contact for 14 days, you would likely end up doing it to alot where it's not necessary.

My issue with this stuff is I'm not sure how much truly asymptomatic people are spreading and the fact that the PCR test doesn't really tell you if your currently "infected".

I don't have a problem doing it your way, but I'm guessing as we've seen already, people won't voluntarily do it.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Depends on the exact situation. If someone in my building got it I probably wouldn't. If someone I work with closely and regularly did I would consider it moreso sure.

I agree and if it was me I would want to know anyway. I don't understand who wouldn't want to know.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

You cant track anything anyway if they are quarantined. You started this conversation talking about being able to track asymptomatic spread did you not?

Why wouldn't you be able to? You get in your car and go get a test while sitting in your vehicle.

[stumppy]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes, he said that when we only had a few cases and community spread wasn't confirmed yet. That's what changed.

So, what prompted the change for the CDC?

Oh, and: