***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 TLO

Kinda blows. I've had great conversations with people about getting vaccinated and then they go on to make their own decision.

Am I pro vaccine? Abso-****ing-lutely. Do I wish all our employees would just get vaccinated? Sure.

But I know it's not realistic. Our company doesn't pay enough to retain, say oh, 30-50% of our field staff that doesn't want to get vaccinated.

We can't operate with 50% of our staff when we're short staffed already.

You've probably mentioned it before, but just out of curiosity, do you know details around their exemption criteria and how that went?

I know a couple of the biggest hospital systems here required it and I've heard one went very well while the other has been a shitshow with no communication about exemptions and other issues (of course heading into flu season).

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

The normal time line for testing and development of a vaccine is 10-15 years.

Early research goes back to 1989, first human trials were around 2000, Moderna started development in 2010, and the first human trials against infectious disease was 2013, plus several other viruses in the mid 2010s.

I haven't found decent information on what those trials find after a year, 3 years, 5 years, 10+ years... I'm sure a lot of it is a matter of figuring out why a vaccine adversely effects a small portion of people, and seeing those effects right away.... versus people suddenly dropping dead 5 years later or developing some other disease that can be linked to the vaccine, etc.

It's something I've been curious about with previous research and trials, if it's just being super diligent or if they routinely learn new things years later.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

Early research goes back to 1989, first human trials were around 2000, Moderna started development in 2010, and the first human trials against infectious disease was 2013, plus several other viruses in the mid 2010s.

I haven't found decent information on what those trials find after a year, 3 years, 5 years, 10+ years... I'm sure a lot of it is a matter of figuring out why a vaccine adversely effects a small portion of people, and seeing those effects right away.... versus people suddenly dropping dead 5 years later or developing some other disease that can be linked to the vaccine, etc.

It's something I've been curious about with previous research and trials, if it's just being super diligent or if they routinely learn new things years later.

Yes Moderna has been trying to bring a drug to market for about 10 years before their covid vaccine. All failed to make it past the mid trial phase.

With any drug sometimes you don't see all the effects right away. With how complicated the human body is we can't always predict how it will react.

Good/ Bad news is we are basically in the biggest stage 3 trial ever conducted. If everything goes well and long term safety is proven. Mrna technology could advance our medical capabilites 10 fold. Basically make fighting cancer with things like chemo look barbaric.

[loochy]

My company is a government contractor, so they're forced to vaccinate or face steep fines.

However, I've been told that the exemption criteria is extremely lax and pretty much anyone that applies with a reasonable explanation will be granted their exception.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

You've probably mentioned it before, but just out of curiosity, do you know details around their exemption criteria and how that went?

I know a couple of the biggest hospital systems here required it and I've heard one went very well while the other has been a shitshow with no communication about exemptions and other issues (of course heading into flu season).

Originally Posted by loochy

My company is a government contractor, so they're forced to vaccinate or face steep fines.

However, I've been told that the exemption criteria is extremely lax and pretty much anyone that applies with a reasonable explanation will be granted their exception.

We fall under Medicare/Medicaid funding, so I'm not sure how lax they will be for us. They quite literally dropped this on our plate yesterday. Something tells me the higher ups of the company knew more about this before they dropped it on us.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

The normal time line for testing and development of a vaccine is 10-15 years.

Ok. What if it is an emergency and you spend 100 to 1000 times the normal amount of money and do much larger trials on a drug that has been extensively researched for over a decade?

You still have to wait 10 years because the bureaucracy has always plodded along like that before?

"They" said it would take months to years to get a vaccine to the point of testing but because of how much attention it got, it was more like weeks.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan

Ok. What if it is an emergency and you spend 100 to 1000 times the normal amount of money and do much larger trials on a drug that has been extensively researched for over a decade?

You still have to wait 10 years because the bureaucracy has always plodded along like that before?

"They" said it would take months to years to get a vaccine to the point of testing but because of how much attention it got, it was more like weeks.

Spend all the money you want. It is not going to speed up the time needed for trials to look for adverse effects.

These specific vaccines have not been researched for decades. The concept has failed for decades. Never even got to stage 3 trials before.

If you want to argue it was an emergency and to make available the vaccine for high risk people. I completely agree.

Mandating and forcing an experimental vaccine in people that should still be in testing phase under normal circumstances. That is just beyond stupid.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by TLO

We fall under Medicare/Medicaid funding, so I'm not sure how lax they will be for us. They quite literally dropped this on our plate yesterday. Something tells me the higher ups of the company knew more about this before they dropped it on us.

Are you actually seeing people quit, or are you hearing people threaten to quit? While I'd imagine the former types are more common in Missouri than other areas, there are plenty of examples from around the country where tons of people threaten to quit but only like 1% actually do.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

How about stop trying to force people to take a vaccine that they don't want?

I'm not trying to force people to do anything.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Are you actually seeing people quit, or are you hearing people threaten to quit? While I'd imagine the former types are more common in Missouri than other areas, there are plenty of examples from around the country where tons of people threaten to quit but only like 1% actually do.

I've had a couple give 2 weeks notice. Though I've talked them into holding off for now until I have more concrete info to give them.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by TLO

I've had a couple give 2 weeks notice. Though I've talked them into holding off for now until I have more concrete info to give them.

Well, in case it's helpful, here's a pretty good article on the impacts that mandates had out here.

https://coloradosun.com/2021/11/17/h...date-staffing/

[Tylerthigpen!1!]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Spend all the money you want. It is not going to speed up the time needed for trials to look for adverse effects.

These specific vaccines have not been researched for decades. The concept has failed for decades. Never even got to stage 3 trials before.

If you want to argue it was an emergency and to make available the vaccine for high risk people. I completely agree.

Mandating and forcing an experimental vaccine in people that should still be in testing phase under normal circumstances. That is just beyond stupid.

I'm curious, what other chemicals that are safe after 2 years are unsafe after 10? Is there any precedence within vaccines? What makes genetic fragments of COVID dangerous (which is what the mRNA vaccines are)? Follwoing that line of thought, wouldn't covid be equally or more unsafe at 10 years?

[ghak99]

Originally Posted by TLO

I've had a couple give 2 weeks notice. Though I've talked them into holding off for now until I have more concrete info to give them.

How might the next court ruling affect your company/employees? I really haven't read into it, but were your superiors perhaps holding out hope it would come down at the same time as the other one so they'd have an idea of what their next options might be?

Apparently, there have been quite a few last minute vacations being used here locally. Using paid time off and vacation days is a pretty clear sign that they must be serious about it. Another problem is a lot of females have decided they can live without all the extras in exchange for spending time at home with their kids and it's having a fairly significant affect on the local care facilities ability to find younger employees. They are recruiting at the local nursing school like never before in an attempt to get every warm body they can. Historically, they have to cut these young kids off at the pass before they get a chance to move to KC.

Oddly enough, one of their best sources of quality new workers has been young families wanting to move back out of the metro area to get their kids into what they consider the better rural school systems they themselves came from. The head of one of the care facilities had really good success with this pitch at one of those "employment fair" type of things they had in KC a few months ago. In the past, there was very very little success with this method.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Tylerthigpen!1!

I'm curious, what other chemicals that are safe after 2 years are unsafe after 10? Is there any precedence within vaccines? What makes genetic fragments of COVID dangerous (which is what the mRNA vaccines are)? Follwoing that line of thought, wouldn't covid be equally or more unsafe at 10 years?

Exactly what I was getting at... I would think just like Covid, there are underlying things that could cause issues, things we already know like if you have a history of going into anaphylaxis shock.

Then you would want to test for certain things like... what if a vaccinated person got a particular disease that the vaccine somehow makes worse.

Just outright saying "we don't know, therefore it could unexpectedly kill me down the road" is a bad excuse unless there's some science behind it... even given we don't know what we don't know.

[Pitt Gorilla]

COVID-19 increases stillbirths during pregnancy: research

https://www.foxnews.com/health/covid...nancy-research

Pregnant women who become infected with the delta variant face a significantly higher risk of a stillbirth or dying during childbirth, new studies show.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released a report Friday that examined 1.2 million deliveries in 736 hospitals nationwide from March 2020 through September 2021.

Stillbirths were rare overall, totaling 8,154 among all deliveries. But researchers found that for women with COVID-19, about one in 80 deliveries resulted in a stillbirth. Among the uninfected, the rate was one in 155.

Among those with COVID-19, stillbirths were more common in people with chronic high blood pressure and other complications, including those in intensive care or on breathing machines, according to the studies.

"These findings underscore the importance of COVID-19 prevention strategies, including vaccination before or during pregnancy," said CDC researcher Carla DeSisto and co-authors.

There’s no information on how many women had received COVID-19 shots, although the authors noted that the U.S. vaccination rate among pregnant women after the highly contagious delta variant emerged this past summer was just 30%.

Pregnant women infected with COVID-19 were more likely than others to develop severe, even fatal, illness and they also faced increased risks for preterm birth and other complications, the researchers found. Previous studies on stillbirths and COVID-19 had mixed findings, but the new report bolsters concerns among obstetricians and anecdotal data.

While the risk for a stillbirth is low, anyone who is pregnant shouldn’t underestimate the dangers of COVID-19, said Dr. Mark Turrentine, a professor at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston. He helped write the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ recommendations for COVID-19 vaccination in pregnancy.

"What’s really sad is we have 10 months of a vaccine that’s been highly effective, and we just can’t convince people to take advantage of this," Turrentine said of a minority of vaccine resisters.

Some experts have speculated that the virus may cause inflammation in the placenta or other abnormalities that could harm the fetus.

US PREMATURE BIRTHS DECLINE IN 2020, MARCH OF DIMES REPORT SAYS

Dr. Joseph Biggio, a specialist in high-risk pregnancies at Ochsner Health in New Orleans, said the study doesn’t prove that COVID-19 causes stillbirths. He said it’s possible some women were so critically ill that physicians trying to keep them alive "couldn’t intervene on behalf of a fetus that they knew was in trouble."

The researchers relied on medical records and noted that they were unable to determine if the COVID-19 diagnoses listed at the time of delivery represented current or past infections.

Generally, stillbirths are more common among Black people, those who become pregnant over age 35 or those who smoke tobacco during pregnancy.

The study didn’t include pregnancy outcomes by race, an area the authors said they plan to investigate in future research "because COVID-19 has disproportionately affected many racial and ethnic minority groups, putting them more at risk of getting sick and dying."