***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.”

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I understand the logic in it. People are making the choice to risk getting COVID but don't bear the financial responsibility if that risk ends up costing the system money to treat them.

But on the other hand, that situation is hardly unprecedented. We don't charge people extra for any number of other health risks (smoking, seat belts, and motorcycle helmets immediately come to mind). I suppose there's a caveat that life insurance does in some cases, but I don't know of any health insurer who charges extra for risky decisions.

In general, I don't think it would go over well in the U.S.

Odd choice since seat belts are legally required. Motorcycle helmets too at least for some people in some states.

High risk activities such as rock climbing can have exclusions from some insurance policies.

Or at least used to. I'm not 100% sure how the changes related to Obamacare might have changed that.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan

Odd choice since seat belts are legally required. Motorcycle helmets too at least for some people in some states.

Not sure how any of that changes the point. Your insurance won't deny your claim because you weren't wearing a seatbelt.

[ghak99]

Originally Posted by TimBone

I'd be interested in hearing others' opinions on this, although I doubt that it doesn't eventually become political discourse.

I'm sure some career geezer thinks it's a great idea, but that move steps well beyond the current covid vaccine issue and .gov can **** right off with that bandaid on a bullet wound bullshit unless they want to open pandoras fat box.

We're all already paying for the consequences of the chain smoking fat **** down the road shoving large pizzas and 48 ounces of corn syrup into her gunt on a daily basis. Not only that, but we're also going to be paying for her 200lb snickers addicted elementary student as well. I'm far from perfect and don't work out as often as I used to, but they're going to have to open that box and do some serious slashing before they'll get anything less than the middle finger from me about any of my potential health issues.

The vaccine/covid issue probably isn't even a drop in the bucket compared to the sugar/lazy issue. You could easily argue that the sugar/lazy issue is one of the biggest contributors to the covid issue.

[Katipan]

Paying Americans to lose weight would have cost less than COVID did

[hometeam]

I'm battling my second bout. Tested positive on the home test a few days ago, after my wife and kid. We had it bad in 2020, vaxxed mid summer last year and now have it again. This time around it's about 10% as bad as 2020 though, with similar but much milder symptoms

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by hometeam

I'm battling my second bout. Tested positive on the home test a few days ago, after my wife and kid. We had it bad in 2020, vaxxed mid summer last year and now have it again. This time around it's about 10% as bad as 2020 though, with similar but much milder symptoms

Sorry to hear, hope it stays mild for you.

Curious to see if you get a PM from a certain someone calling you a liar about getting it twice...

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Katipan

Paying Americans to lose weight would have cost less than COVID did

Sadly a lot of people think being obese is a fine state of being and will fight you if you say otherwise.

Look at the praise this gal gets.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbi...us-curves.html

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by Katipan

Paying Americans to lose weight would have cost less than COVID did

At the same time, if Patrick Mahomes died of Covid, he'd be well into the overweight range of their metric and dangerously close to obese according to the metric they use to say how many people are overweight/obese who die from Covid.

He'd need to lose 30-80 pounds to be "healthy".

Obviously, unhealthy people tend to be unhealthy and Patrick Mahomes isn't dying from Covid, but the metric in itself is just as useless as the whole "came in with a gunshot wound, died of Covid" thing that goes around.

Height: 6 feet, 3 inches

Weight: 230 pounds

Your BMI is 28.7, indicating your weight is in the Overweight category for adults of your height.

For your height, a healthy weight range would be from 148 to 199 pounds.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

At the same time, if Patrick Mahomes died of Covid, he'd be well into the overweight range of their metric and dangerously close to obese according to the metric they use to say how many people are overweight/obese who die from Covid.

He'd need to lose 30-80 pounds to be "healthy".

Obviously, unhealthy people tend to be unhealthy and Patrick Mahomes isn't dying from Covid, but the metric in itself is just as useless as the whole "came in with a gunshot wound, died of Covid" thing that goes around.

For anyone that lifts weights, BMI is totally useless.

The vast majority of people who are obese by BMI do not lift weights.

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

For anyone that lifts weights, BMI is totally useless.

The vast majority of people who are obese by BMI do not lift weights.

You don't have to lift weights to have higher body mass related to muscle.

[BigBeauford]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

For anyone that lifts weights, BMI is totally useless.

The vast majority of people who are obese by BMI do not lift weights.

Yeah, if I had a dime for every 40 sized waist dude whining about BMI.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I understand the logic in it. People are making the choice to risk getting COVID but don't bear the financial responsibility if that risk ends up costing the system money to treat them.

But on the other hand, that situation is hardly unprecedented. We don't charge people extra for any number of other health risks (smoking, seat belts, and motorcycle helmets immediately come to mind). I suppose there's a caveat that life insurance does in some cases, but I don't know of any health insurer who charges extra for risky decisions.

In general, I don't think it would go over well in the U.S.

Smoking and drinking get taxed indirectly on the products themselves although black market/native cigs are easier to find these days, they have thought about taxing certain high sugar foods in the past. In a system like ours some people I am sure would support it, I just don't think It make sense.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by penguinz

You don't have to lift weights to have higher body mass related to muscle.

Sure, a relatively small percentage of the population is naturally muscular or actually works physically for a living.

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

Sure, a relatively small percentage of the population is naturally muscular or actually works physically for a living.

Not true at all. My 15:year old is not visibly muscular at all. Does not lift and he has a high BMI. He is just naturally 'dense'.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by penguinz

Not true at all. My 15:year old is not visibly muscular at all. Does not lift and he has a high BMI. He is just naturally 'dense'.

Yes, and those kind of people are also a small percentage of the population.

Are you actually attempting to say that the large number of obese people you see every time you leave the house don't exist?