***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.”

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'll never understand why 99% survival rate is an argument for anything. If 1% of the country died, that would be around 3.5 million people. Or to frame it a little differently, if 1% of people in Arrowhead stadium died, that would be around 760 people. One percent is NOT A SMALL NUMBER.

I just don't understand how anyone can look at the ~700k deaths from this thing and think, "This is fine. Let's keep this up."

In the same breath though, we're talking about herd immunity and how 700k deaths is okay, but then when 99% of hospitalizations and deaths are unvaccinated the concern quickly moves to spread and why would I get vaccineif I can still get it..

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'll never understand why 99% survival rate is an argument for anything. If 1% of the country died, that would be around 3.5 million people. Or to frame it a little differently, if 1% of people in Arrowhead stadium died, that would be around 760 people. One percent is NOT A SMALL NUMBER.

I just don't understand how anyone can look at the ~700k deaths from this thing and think, "This is fine. Let's keep this up."

The survival rate for under 65 is higher than 99%.

Looking at the numbers 30 and under is pretty much a joke to try and force vaccination for that age group.

Forcing people to get vaccinated but then take away liability of the company making the vaccine. So people have no recourse if they experience adverse reactions. Makes total sense.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

The survival rate for under 65 is higher than 99%.

Looking at the numbers 30 and under is pretty much a joke to try and force vaccination for that age group.

Forcing people to get vaccinated but then take away liability of the company making the vaccine. So people have no recourse if they experience adverse reactions. Makes total sense.

How many old people are you willing to let die before you think it's a problem?

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by DaFace

How many old people are you willing to let die before you think it's a problem?

How many freedoms do you need to lose before you think it is a problem?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'll never understand why 99% survival rate is an argument for anything. If 1% of the country died, that would be around 3.5 million people. Or to frame it a little differently, if 1% of people in Arrowhead stadium died, that would be around 760 people. One percent is NOT A SMALL NUMBER.

I just don't understand how anyone can look at the ~700k deaths from this thing and think, "This is fine. Let's keep this up."

Can you stick this in the OP?

[O.city]

I'm not sure about that survival rate for under 65. Maybe for those under 45 ish, closer to 40.

Once you get over 65 I'd imagine it's closer to 95ish.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

How many freedoms do you need to lose before you think it is a problem?

And with that, I'm done. If you want to be a selfish asshole who doesn't care about the wellbeing of his fellow man, I wish you'd just admit that that's all there is to it and stop claiming it's due to some nebulous idea of "freedom" that doesn't actually exist.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

The survival rate for under 65 is higher than 99%.

Looking at the numbers 30 and under is pretty much a joke to try and force vaccination for that age group.

Forcing people to get vaccinated but then take away liability of the company making the vaccine. So people have no recourse if they experience adverse reactions. Makes total sense.

Is there 1 company literally forcing vaccinations without any medical or religious out or testing requirements for unvaccinated to support this largely false narrative?

[Katipan]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

How many freedoms do you need to lose before you think it is a problem?

I bet it's less than 680k.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

How many freedoms do you need to lose before you think it is a problem?

What freedoms specifically have you lost right now?

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by DaFace

And with that, I'm done. If you want to be a selfish asshole who doesn't care about the wellbeing of his fellow man, I wish you'd just admit that that's all there is to it and stop claiming it's due to some nebulous idea of "freedom" that doesn't actually exist.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Is there 1 company literally forcing vaccinations without any medical or religious out or testing requirements for unvaccinated to support this largely false narrative?

Have you not heard about the vaccine mandates? There was quite the discussion about it in this thread.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Have you not heard about the vaccine mandates? There was quite the discussion about it in this thread.

It was an either or thing. Not an actual mandate. Vaccination or testing.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Have you not heard about the vaccine mandates? There was quite the discussion about it in this thread.

Every company I've seen that's requiring vaccinations for employees has an out... either have a legit medical reason, some have (IMO, bullshit) religious outs, and some will employ unvaccinated people under testing protocols.

If you're talking about walking into a private business, denying entry doesn't deny a freedom any more than "no shoes, no shirt, no service".

I personally don't like the idea of anyone stepping in to tell people to get vaccinated "or else", but I also don't like any number of other restrictions put on people that you have to deal with when you live in a society or the thought of having to find another hospital if I need an ICU bed and there are none available.

Screw your freedom to get vaccinated if you're unvaccinated, on a vent, and I'm being denied my "freedom" to healthcare.

[Bearcat]

After all, according to the CDC and BMI metric, at 6'3", 205, with a 38" waist, I'm obese and my fat ass may need that bed due to my freedom to drink beer and have underlying conditions.