***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.”

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

I gotcha. You just seem to suck the life out of every thread. This thread had good info without all the DC level back and forth the last few days. Hopefully it stays that way. No offense.

It seems like most of the DC trash has been removed, yes.

[BWillie]

In about a month, cases are going to start increasing.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Donger

It seems like most of the DC trash has been removed, yes.

The last few days have been improved. Seems a lot of posters have disappeared this week, yes.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Donger

It seems like most of the DC trash has been removed, yes.

The last few days have been improved. Seems a lot of posters have disappeared this week, yes. Suzzer was really the one doom and gloom one rooting it on.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BWillie

In about a month, cases are going to start increasing.

That wouldn't be surprising at all, and probably sooner than that. It would be nice to get cases below the levels they were in early June (~20,000/day).

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Donger

It seems like most of the DC trash has been removed, yes.

The covid DC thread is hilarious/depressing. One poster makes a completely nonsensical post about 6% - then a dozen more immediately rush in and spike the football.

[BigCatDaddy]

It was nice while it lasted

[suzzer99]

A New Theory Asks: Could a Mask Be a Crude ‘Vaccine’?

Scientists float a provocative — and unproven — idea: that masks expose the wearer to just enough of the virus to spark a protective immune response.

As the world awaits the arrival of a safe and effective coronavirus vaccine, a team of researchers has come forward with a provocative new theory: that masks might help to crudely immunize some people against the virus.

The unproven idea, described in a commentary published Tuesday in the New England Journal of Medicine, is inspired by the age-old concept of variolation, the deliberate exposure to a pathogen to generate a protective immune response. First tried against smallpox, the risky practice eventually fell out of favor, but paved the way for the rise of modern vaccines.

Masked exposures are no substitute for a bona fide vaccine. But data from animals infected with the coronavirus, as well as insights gleaned from other diseases, suggest that masks, by cutting down on the number of viruses that encounter a person’s airway, might reduce the wearer’s chances of getting sick. And if a small number of pathogens still slip through, the researchers argue, these might prompt the body to produce immune cells that can remember the virus and stick around to fight it off again.

“You can have this virus but be asymptomatic,” said Dr. Monica Gandhi, an infectious disease physician at the University of California, San Francisco, and one of the commentary’s authors. “So if you can drive up rates of asymptomatic infection with masks, maybe that becomes a way to variolate the population.”

That does not mean people should don a mask to intentionally inoculate themselves with the virus. “This is not the recommendation at all,” Dr. Gandhi said. “Neither are pox parties,” she added, referring to social gatherings that mingle the healthy and the sick.

Experiments in hamsters have hinted at a connection between dose and disease. Earlier this year, a team of researchers in China found that hamsters housed behind a barrier made of surgical masks were less likely to get infected by the coronavirus. And those who did contract the virus became less sick than other animals without masks to protect them.

A few observations in humans seem to support this trend as well. In crowded settings where masks are in widespread use, infection rates seem to plummet. And although face coverings cannot block all inbound virus particles for all people, they do seem to be linked to less illness. Researchers have uncovered largely silent, symptomless outbreaks in venues from cruise ships to food processing plants, all full of mostly masked people.

Data linking dose to symptoms have been gathered for other microbes that attack the human airway, including influenza viruses and the bacteria that cause tuberculosis.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

A New Theory Asks: Could a Mask Be a Crude ‘Vaccine’?

I speculated this could be a thing few months ago , where mask could still help us achieve HI at a lesser risk. It would explain reduced deaths/hospitalizations even when we had growing cases.

[suzzer99]

Yeah it really would. Italy's IFR was over 1% in the worst of it. Now they're dealing with it much better.

Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, Vietnam were all masks from the beginning and have barely had an issue - except for that cult in S. Korea that caused the initial blowup.

[O.city]

So the Penn State study about heart issues? Turns out athletes without Covid had higher fibrosis.

So yeah, we've jumped the shark.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Yeah it really would. Italy's IFR was over 1% in the worst of it. Now they're dealing with it much better.

Japan, Taiwan, S. Korea, Vietnam were all masks from the beginning and have barely had an issue - except for that cult in S. Korea that caused the initial blowup.

Japan had big spikes in April and last month, despite largely being mask compliant.

You know what else they didn't do? Quarantine healthy people. The government actually came out publicly and said they don't expect people to curtail their travel.

[O.city]

Or a more likely explanation is it was a multitude of things that helped.

Mask wearing is a piece of it. A big piece is that the vulnerable population was probably picked off earlier sadly. Then you've got some types of immunity emerging in some areas.

IFR is gonna be age stratified.

[suzzer99]

Update from data modeler Steven Millman (who unlike Ethical Skeptic, actually backs up his claims with plain English explanations and data):

September 10th COVID Update Hypothetical: How many Americans would have died of COVID-19 by now had we followed the path of European national responses?

SHORT VERSION: 77,305 meaning we have seen more than 113,000 unnecessary deaths SO FAR with more every day. Take this estimate with a grain of salt, because error margins are wide, but there’s no doubt the death toll could have been far lower than the current 190,000.

tl;dr as though I even need to say that anymore

Given the news of the day, a question I’ve not been generally interested in answering has come up so often that I’ve finally decided to run it. That question is, How many Americans would have died of COVID-19 by now had the government and the population reacted to the pandemic in much the same way as other developed nations which were initially hit hard? This is pure conjecture, and please take it as such. I’ll do my best to spell out the assumptions clearly.

To make a reasonable comparison, I’ve modeled the answer to this question based on countries which (1) took a heavy toll before reacting effectively, (3) eventually reacted effectively – looking at YOU Sweden, (3) are Western democracies with well-developed individual freedom, and (4) have modern medical care systems. For this thought experiment, I therefore selected Spain, France, Italy, and the United Kingdom. These four countries managed to get the virus under control (more or less) after disastrous early death tolls.

On average, these countries reached their peak death rate as defined by their highest seven day average in about 32 days from the date of the first death (range: 27-37) at which point they were averaging 886 deaths per day (range: 760-975). After this sharp increase, deaths began to decline quickly, albeit at a slower rate than they rose. On average, these countries dropped to ½ of their peak death rate on 22 days later on day 54 (range: 16-27), to ¼ of their peak 18 days after on day 72 that (range 12-22) and reached an equilibrium state of just under 10 deaths per day (range 2.5-19) on about day 130.

To build a more or less similar curve, I assumed that had we responded like our European counterparts we would also have peaked on day 32 and used our actual death count on that date as the starting point for the models. I then assumed we would have dropped to ½ of that rate on day 54, ¼ of that rate on day 72, and reached equilibrium on day 130. Because of the simplicity of this approach the attached figure has a sharp peak rather than a rounded one, but it effects the estimated death count with only marginally. The attached images show the US actual 7-day average death rates as well as Italy, Spain, France and the UK along side the simplistic model of the US death rates following European models. The best fit model created an asymptote (leveling off) at about 40 deaths per day in the US. That’s much higher than the other countries, but then again, the US is a much larger country as well.

The current death toll from COVID-19 today – day 189 – in the US based on Johns Hopkins data is 190,862. The total death estimated death toll for the US on day 189 based on the European model is 77,305. Based on these assumptions, the US has allowed itself 113,557 unnecessary deaths SO FAR.

Making matters worse, we are currently averaging about 1,000 deaths each day in the US, not 40. This means that the number of unnecessary deaths is increasing by almost 1,000 Americans each and every day. My current published model for the US has us reaching equilibrium at 574 deaths per day, so when we do eventually level off (before rising again in all likelihood) we will be adding 534 unnecessary deaths per day.

REMEMBER: There are a LOT of assumptions in here to generate a best fit model estimate for the US based on the experiences in Europe. I don’t have tons of faith in the EXACT 77,305 estimate and neither should you. It is, however, quite reasonable to believe based on the data that the real unknowable answer to this hypothetical is between 50,000 and 100,000 deaths had we reacted more forcefully as a nation. No matter how you slice it, it’s a LOT lower than the results of our half-hearted and occasionally outright oppositional response to the pandemic.

So how do we get out of this literal and figurative death spiral? Simple. Do the things you already know you need to do. Avoid crowds, especially indoors. Wear a mask when around others and wash your hands frequently. Social distance. As I’ve said many, many times, we have never been much more than one month from getting the virus under control and having our normal(ish) lives back if we all collectively did these things. We can do it – all of our peers have. Please?

I understand the news of the day and that virtually everyone reading this will want to toss political blame, but honestly, I don’t find that particularly helpful. Just follow the science, encourage people to do the same. It makes no difference at this point which political tribe you follow, just do the obvious stuff and then we can get back to gleefully arguing about regular things like tax cuts, budget deficits, and judicial appointments. That sounds a lot better to me than doing these damnably depressing models.

Data are drawn from Johns Hopkins University’s COVID tracking project. As always, don’t forget I’m not a medical professional or epidemiologist. I’m a professional statistician with too much on my mind.

[O.city]

Here's my problem with that. A large amount of people HAVE been doing those things. If we all did them, sure, we'd get the numbers down. But here's where they play their tricky magic.

"Normal life" wouldn't come back after that. Not until there's a vaccine or immunity hits. Because as soon as you stop doing those things, guess what.

I'm pretty ****ing tired of this whole elitist lecturing from these people. Normal people have uprooted and sacrificed and done waht they've been asked. Stop ****ing tell us it's our fault that we are where we are.