***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.”

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by loochy

So you know that about 75% of people in the middle of the country will decline vaccination, right?

Dude, I know nurses that are super pro-mask and what not that have said they will refuse the vaccine.

These are people that works with Covid and other patients every day. As it is, our health system requires flu vaccine but will not require the Covid vaccine. At least not for the foreseeable future.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Sure you are...

Interesting.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I see you suffer the same problem as he did. The article was about mask mandates. Not masks.

And assuming everyone wore masks in the counties that mandates them then you would be wrong about your scientific fact. Otherwise you twats might actually read what is said and not what you want it to say.

You have spent the last 9 months selling the idea that the virus is not the bad as the media and "twats" says it is. Doesn't matter what part of this situation, what tool, what some city, state or the government is doing or not doing.

You minimize the impact. And you've been wrong the whole time.Thats your agenda. Thats fine and dandy from an "opinion" viewpoint. But, putting junk science out there as fact, doesn't make it a scientific fact.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by BigRedChief

You have spent the last 9 months selling the idea that the virus is not the bad as the media and "twats" says it is. Doesn't matter what part of this situation, what tool, what some city, state or the government is doing or not doing.

You minimize the impact. And you've been wrong the whole time.Thats your agenda. Thats fine and dandy from an "opinion" viewpoint. But, putting junk science out there as fact, doesn't make it a scientific fact.

Yep, hurry and deflect it and blame me for your not reading.

It's only junk science because you don't like it.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

But...but....but.....

But what? I'd be willing he said that before March. And he was right, then.

[BigCatDaddy]

I motion that any time the word "mask" comes up in the thread that person is banned.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by petegz28

And Donger quickly moves the goal posts.....

You and people like you have been minimizing covid and masks since March then you wonder why mask mandates are not working.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Monticore

You and people like you have been minimizing covid and masks since March then you wonder why mask mandates are not working.

Yeah, you don't like the facts the article states so you attack me. I get it.....

[petegz28]

Maybe before any of you little girls throw more temper tantrums over the article I posted, you can tell me what exactly the article had wrong?

[MahomesMagic]

The New York Times pulled a mighty fast one with this piece: “States That Imposed Few Restrictions Now Have the Worst Outbreaks.” This would be huge news if true because it would imply not only that lockdowns save lives (which no serious study has thus far been able to document) but also that granting people basic freedoms are the reason for bad health outcomes, an astonishing claim on its own.

The piece, put together by two graphic artists and seemingly very science-like, speaks of “outbreaks,” which vaguely sounds terrible: packed with mortality. It’s odd because anyone can look at the data and see that New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut lead the way with deaths per million, mostly owing to the fatalities in long-term care facilities. These were the states that locked down the hardest and longest. Indeed they are locking down again! Deaths per million in states like South Dakota are still low on the list.

How in the world can the NYT claim that states that did not lock down have the worst outbreaks? The claim hinges entirely on a trivial discovery. Some clever someone discovered that if you reflow data by cases per million instead of deaths per million, you get an opposite result. The reasons: 1) when the Northeast experienced the height of the pandemic, there was very little testing going on, so the “outbreak” was not documented even as deaths grew and grew, 2) by the time the virus reached the Midwest, tests were widely available, 3) the testing mania grew and grew to the point that the non-vulnerable are being tested like crazy, generating high positives in small-population areas.

By focusing on the word “outbreak,” the Times can cleverly obscure the difference between a positive PCR result (including many false positive and perhaps half or more asymptomatic cases) and a severe outcome from catching the virus. In other words, the Times has documented an “outbreak” of mostly non-sick people in low-population areas.

There are hundreds of ways to look at Covid-19 data. The Times picked the one metric – the least valuable one for actually discerning whether and to what extent people are sick – in order to generate the result that they wanted

How is it possible for people to make rational decisions with this kind of journalism going on? Truly, sometimes it seems like the world has been driven insane by an astonishing blizzard of false information. Just last week, an entire state in Australia shut down completely – putting all its citizens under house arrest – due to a false report of a case in a pizza restaurant. One person lied and the whole world fell apart.

Meanwhile, serious science is appearing daily showing that there is no relationship at all, and never has been, between lockdowns and lives saved. This study looks at all factors related to Covid death and finds plenty of relationship between age and health but absolutely none with lockdown stringency. “Stringency of the measures settled to fight pandemia, including lockdown, did not appear to be linked with death rate,” says the study, echoing a conclusion of dozens of other studies since as early as March.

https://www.aier.org/article/the-bli...lism-on-covid/

[O.city]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Maybe before any of you little girls throw more temper tantrums over the article I posted, you can tell me what exactly the article had wrong?

Whenever these types of articles are debunked or fact checked it’ll be one to something else anyway

There’s no point in arguing over it. No one changing their minds.

Dentists have had an extremely low percent of infections in office settings, have been a few studies in JADA about it. We’re wearing masks and shields while producing aerosols and still have kept issues very low.

We know masks help. Again, they aren’t 100% effective in curbing this and people likely feel safe when they have a mask on and relax other things.

But when those other things are stressed, people find reasons not to do them or “debunk” them as well.

At this point, everyone take care of yourself and those close to you, hope there is a bed available or staff to help you if you get it and it gets bad and hope vaccines come quickly

Other than that, the political will has been spent, people don’t care

[O.city]

There are so many bad faith arguments all the way around on this thing at this point. It’s hard to decipher.

Lockdowns aren’t meant to be permanent and aren’t meant to “save lives”. They’re meant to slow infection rates and push out the overload longer. It allowed us to find therapeutics and to develop vaccines. They also came at high economical cost and detrimental effects to people’s lives.

It’s all been a pure lose lose situation for everyone

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by O.city

Whenever these types of articles are debunked or fact checked it’ll be one to something else anyway

There’s no point in arguing over it. No one changing their minds.

Dentists have had an extremely low percent of infections in office settings, have been a few studies in JADA about it. We’re wearing masks and shields while producing aerosols and still have kept issues very low.

We know masks help. Again, they aren’t 100% effective in curbing this and people likely feel safe when they have a mask on and relax other things.

But when those other things are stressed, people find reasons not to do them or “debunk” them as well.

At this point, everyone take care of yourself and those close to you, hope there is a bed available or staff to help you if you get it and it gets bad and hope vaccines come quickly

Other than that, the political will has been spent, people don’t care

I know my issue is not with the mask mandates but intentionally using misleading data to justify them. This is now the 4th time Kansas has been caught doing it.

If you want people to do something I don't think intentionally manipulating data is going to build any trust.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

There are so many bad faith arguments all the way around on this thing at this point. It’s hard to decipher.

Lockdowns aren’t meant to be permanent and aren’t meant to “save lives”.

lolwut

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I know my issue is not with the mask mandates but intentionally using misleading data to justify them. This is now the 4th time Kansas has been caught doing it.

If you want people to do something I don't think intentionally manipulating data is going to build any trust.

So you doing the same thing in the opposite direction is supposed to help?