***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.”

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by DaFace

If your bar for taking a drug is that "I don't think it will hurt," there are literally thousands of them out there you could try. Almost none of them will make any difference, but hey, it doesn't hurt, right?

It doesn't make sense that one of hundreds being studied is suddenly in such high demand that people are going out of their way to get it without even consulting their doctor about it.

I am neither for or against them. I don't think there is enough data. I just wish we could find some kind of treatment. If these could possible help then we should take the time to study it.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

I am neither for or against them. I don't think there is enough data. I just wish we could find some kind of treatment. If these could possible help then we should take the time to study it.

That's exactly what's happening right now. Here's an overview.

https://www.goodrx.com/blog/coronavi...ts-on-the-way/

[Pitt Gorilla]

I have zero issue with people taking ivermectin. I simply don't understand its popularity/demand. I feel like there is some definitive study on the matter that I haven't seen, or something. It just doesn't make sense.

It can't simply be cowardice toward vaccines.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I have zero issue with people taking ivermectin. I simply don't understand its popularity/demand. I feel like there is some definitive study on the matter that I haven't seen, or something. It just doesn't make sense.

To be clear, I don't either...provided it's based on a doctor's recommendation.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

I am neither for or against them. I don't think there is enough data. I just wish we could find some kind of treatment. If these could possible help then we should take the time to study it.

If Pfizer or Merck release their pill treatments by end of year would you take it?

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

If Pfizer or Merck release their pill treatments by end of year would you take it?

If I was sick enough that my health was in danger and that is what my doctor recommends for treatment. Of course I would.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'll keep trying to combat the misperception that vaccines aren't safe in the long-term. We have literally never in the history of mankind had any vaccine that had side effects that didn't show up at first and did down the road. Ever. This is not debatable, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.

Worried about mRNA? You shouldn't be, but the J&J vaccine uses the tried and true method. It's less effective, but if you want an approach that seems less novel, there it is. Fears over "new technology" aren't a reasonable excuse to avoid getting vaccinated.

Don't get me wrong. I am rooting for mrna. I think the tech is amazing and opens the door to so many possibilities. It is just very new with no long term data.

The Johnson vaccine doesn't seem to be that effective against Delta. Plus with that companies past I don't really trust any of their products.

I am neither for or against the vaccines. I think everyone should weigh their own risks and decide for themselves.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Don't get me wrong. I am rooting for mrna. I think the tech is amazing and opens the door to so many possibilities. It is just very new with no long term data.

The Johnson vaccine doesn't seem to be that effective against Delta. Plus with that companies past I don't really trust any of their products.

I am neither for or against the vaccines. I think everyone should weigh their own risks and decide for themselves.

I have idea how you're using the term "long term data." What, exactly, are you looking for here?

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

If I was sick enough that my health was in danger and that is what my doctor recommends for treatment. Of course I would.

Your doctor would likely recommend you get a covid vaccination too, if you haven't already gotten one.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I have idea how you're using the term "long term data." What, exactly, are you looking for here?

Well the average drug takes about 12 years before it is approved in the US.

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/m...rticlekey=9877


Phase 3 which is to help measure safety is on average 3 years. Honestly it really depends on the risk. If you have already had covid, young, fit, and healthy. Do you really think you are so much at risk that you need the vaccine?

The same vaccine that is supposedly safe but watched first hand someone in their family have a bad reaction and die from it.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by TLO

Your doctor would likely recommend you get a covid vaccination too, if you haven't already gotten one.

My health isn't in danger at the moment.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Well the average drug takes about 12 years before it is approved in the US.

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/m...rticlekey=9877


Phase 3 which is to help measure safety is on average 3 years. Honestly it really depends on the risk. If you have already had covid, young, fit, and healthy. Do you really think you are so much at risk that you need the vaccine?

The same vaccine that is supposedly safe but watched first hand someone in their family have a bad reaction and die from it.

So, you think folks should wait 15 years to take the vaccine?

[DaFace]

It's really difficult for me to reconcile these two perspectives.

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

It is probably the fact that it can be a treatment. If you don't catch covid you don't need to take it. Why put drugs in your body if you don't need them type of thing. Kind of crazy that 18 or so months in to Covid we still don't have a standard protocol to treat covid once infected.

Also we know the effect of those drugs long term. You don't know the effect of this new vaccine on you long term. It is an entirely new method that has never been used before.

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Well the average drug takes about 12 years before it is approved in the US.

https://www.medicinenet.com/script/m...rticlekey=9877


Phase 3 which is to help measure safety is on average 3 years. Honestly it really depends on the risk. If you have already had covid, young, fit, and healthy. Do you really think you are so much at risk that you need the vaccine?

The same vaccine that is supposedly safe but watched first hand someone in their family have a bad reaction and die from it.

Do you want it to be fast, or do you want it to have years of study before you consider it safe? You can't have both.

[Kiimo]

Since when is J&J ineffective against Delta

[O.city]

Making a therapeutic for a virus is really god damn hard. By the time you are sick enough to have symptoms, you're usually at the point where there is already replication occurring at a level too high to combat in the short term.

It's just hard to do.