***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]

Don't get hating Big Pharma for the vaccine but it is ok to love them for HCQ. I am sure whatever company owns HCQ would have loved it to work so they could have made money.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Don't get hating Big Pharma for the vaccine but it is ok to love them for HCQ. I am sure whatever company owns HCQ would have loved it to work so they could have made money.

I would not surprised if Pfizer made a version since it 's patent is probably expired.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Don't get hating Big Pharma for the vaccine but it is ok to love them for HCQ. I am sure whatever company owns HCQ would have loved it to work so they could have made money.

Yeah, if the treatment or prevention was water, someone would have found a way to profit from it.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Yeah, if the treatment or prevention was water, someone would have found a way to profit from it.

Not enough $ in that method.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Not enough $ in that method.

The bottled water industry would like a word.

[ChiliConCarnage]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Yeah, if the treatment or prevention was water, someone would have found a way to profit from it.

I drink some water everyday and I've not caught the 'rona. I think the facts speak for themselves.

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by DaFace

And this is why the conversation always derails. You're not looking to learn. You're looking to defend a position that you don't even understand. It just becomes a waste of everyone's time.

So, given that the Lancet study was retracted, what logical reasons were there to ban use of HCQ?

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

So, given that the Lancet study was retracted, what logical reasons were there to ban use of HCQ?

It had no benefit and since the drug it self has risks , when the benefit doesn't not outweigh risk it doesn't tend to be used and I wasn't aware it was banned it is just not recommended for treatment doesn't mean it can't be used.

[phisherman]

When was HCQ banned? The health system that I worked for had it as a compassionate use treatment option for several months but it was eventually phased out.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

So, given that the Lancet study was retracted, what logical reasons were there to ban use of HCQ?

It's not banned. It's just that no one is using it (again, because it makes very little difference).

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by Monticore

It had no benefit and since the drug it self has risks , when the benefit doesn't not outweigh risk it doesn't tend to be used and I wasn't aware it was banned it is just not recommended for treatment doesn't mean it can't be used.

It was banned in some states.

HCQ has a long track record of safety and has been FDA-approved for 65 years. In fact, relative to other pharmaceuticals, it's one of the safest.

And there just aren't a lot of studies on HCQ + zinc. But those that exist are promising, and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence.

If their only goal was to promote safe and effective treatments, there was no rational reason to put the hammer down on HCQ/zinc.

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by DaFace

It's not banned. It's just that no one is using it (again, because it makes very little difference).

So you think that all the anecdotal evidence is false?

Here's just one of many:

https://stateofthenation.co/?p=51722


Story at-a-glance

As early as March 2020, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko boasted a near-100% success rate treating COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin and zinc sulfate for five days

Zelenko has now treated 3,000 patients with COVID-19 symptoms and only three high-risk patients have died

Misinformation and outright lies were spun about HCQ, including fabricated research, in an apparent effort to suppress and prevent widespread use

Early treatment is crucial. During the first five days of SARS-CoV-2 infection, the viral load remains fairly steady. Around Day 5, it exponentially increases, potentially overwhelming your immune system. To prevent complications, treatment needs to begin within the first five days of symptom onset

Early treatment is also crucial to prevent “long-haul” symptoms after recovery. None of Zelenko’s patients who started their treatment within the first five days went on to develop long-haul symptoms

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by DaFace

The bottled water industry would like a word.

You think bottled water is as profitable as the covid vaccine?

Bottled water is actually very low margin business.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

It was banned in some states.

HCQ has a long track record of safety and has been FDA-approved for 65 years. In fact, relative to other pharmaceuticals, it's one of the safest.

And there just aren't a lot of studies on HCQ + zinc. But those that exist are promising, and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence.

If their only goal was to promote safe and effective treatments, there was no rational reason to put the hammer down on HCQ/zinc.

This will be my last response to you, as you're just wasting everyone's time and space. It's not banned. Never has been. No one cares because there are far better treatments available.

If you want to join the ranks of people who swear by things like essential oils and herbal supplements, fine. Just stop trying to convince others that you're onto some miracle cure.

The rest of us will be paying attention to things that actually matter.

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by DaFace

This will be my last response to you, as you're just wasting everyone's time and space. It's not banned. Never has been. No one cares because there are far better treatments available.

If you want to join the ranks of people who swear by things like essential oils and herbal supplements, fine. Just stop trying to convince others that you're onto some miracle cure.

The rest of us will be paying attention to things that actually matter.

It was in some states. Here's a few examples:

Minnesota’s governor and Board of Pharmacy have taken action to manage the supply of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in the state, and at this time, are not allowing it to be dispensed for the treatment or prevention of COVID-19.

On April 2, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey issued executive order 2020-20 which placed restrictions on the prescribing and dispensing of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for use in treating or preventing COVID-19.

On June 15, citing the FDA's revocation of their Emergency Use Authorization for the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine to treat COVID-19, the Arkansas Department of Health updated their guidance to indicate that the use of either drug for the treatment of COVID-19 should be avoided in both outpatient and hospital settings.

On April 3, the New Hampshire Department of Health and Human Services issued an emergency order regulating the prescribing and dispensing of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in the state.

The order prohibits the prescribing or dispensing of prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the prevention of COVID-19, and establishes a quantity limit of 30 days only for patients who were not already established on either medication. Patients already established will not be limited to a 30-day supply.

https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3875427/posts