***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.”

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by AustinChief

You can also fit the data by increasing the assumed R0 and assuming a much higher infected rate and a much lower severity for the virus, that is what one of the UK models did. I have no clue which is correct but let's be honest and recognize that there are VASTLY disparate models that can fit the data we currently have. As we get more data that will obviously change. Serology tests would be a HUGE benefit right now in regards to having much more accurate data. (Yes, I'm going to keep beating that dead horse)

If the most recent number is to be believed, an R0 of 5.7 would require 82% (IIRC) of the population to be infected to reach herd immunity. That would lead to a tremendously high peak if the virus is even close to as virulent as currently believed. Given what we've seen from isolated examples of a moderate sample size (cruise ships), such a contrastingly low severity of the virus is less likely.

I don't believe that anyone has come out against serology testing in any fashion. The issue, of course, is one of scale.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Could you make your posts a little shorter? Not trying to be a dick in just saying. If I wanted to read a long article on the subject I would go to a different website.

your reply was TLDR

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Could you make your posts a little shorter? Not trying to be a dick in just saying. If I wanted to read a long article on the subject I would go to a different website.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

You don't read it anyway so no, I'm not typing for the "hey, could you dumb that down so the 'arrest anyone that leaves their home' crowd can understand?".

Short enough for you sweetheart?

Don't wanna read it, don't read it. You won't offer anything useful in response anyway.

LOL. I was going to respond with something snarky. You did it better

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Could you make your posts a little shorter? Not trying to be a dick in just saying. If I wanted to read a long article on the subject I would go to a different website.

[dirk digler]

I hope this isn't to political and I know many are bashing the models but the WH created their own model and are using it for their decisions but they won't release it. I know at one time they started out using the Imperial model which scared everyone but then transitioned to the IHME model then their own.

It would be interesting to see what the government's model looks like.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

You believe the R0 is presently anywhere near 1? And that it happened in, what, a week?

C'mon. You continue to overstate the ease in which you can drive a virus's R0 down to 1.

And again, how do you explain the fact that those models, even the best case scenarios with complete social isolation, DIDN'T do what you're saying would happen. They didn't bring the peak in sooner - they simply reduced it even flatter and for even longer.

The models that you're trying desperately to defend didn't even do what you claim is so facially obvious as to be beyond reproach.

Hong Kong University medical school has kept a running tally of what they believe the R0 of the virus is there. They got it as low as 0.4. So yes, I believe, it can be done.

And the model that you are talking about was assuming 50% social isolation, not 90%. That has been fairly extensively discussed on here over the last day.

If you have a virus with an R0 of 5.7 or 2.7 or 3.5 and you implement 90% of the population in social distancing then you will get the R0 below 1. The degree below one is of course dependent upon the R0, but 90% compliance to a therapy that was assuming 50% compliance will result in a fairly substantially different output, because as soon as I get that level of compliance, I'm already transmitting the virus to fewer people than currently have it, which, by definition, will move the peak in and flatten it.

Your thesis only applies if the R0 remains above 1 but below the critical threshold of the healthcare system.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Im just saying you can be a little wordy in your responses something you admitted yourself. Do you really think anyone is going to read that longass post? Just some friendly advice

I read all the DJLN posts I can. He doesn’t shit post. Typically if he is responding he has a well thought out position that he can effectively articulate. I’ll take 10 DJLN, Rain Man, Baby Lee and Hamas for every penbrook/Mahomo whatever he is that just likes whatever rolls across his Twitter feed in whatever thread he has open. But hey, it doesn’t take much to read his posts. And catering to our ADD is what we’re here for right?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I hope this isn't to political and I know many are bashing the models but the WH created their own model and are using it for their decisions but they won't release it. I know at one time they started out using the Imperial model which scared everyone but then transitioned to the IHME model then their own.

It would be interesting to see what the government's model looks like.

Just in general, I wish that more of the models were made public (at the state level, too). I think they're all hesitant to do so because it invites the criticisms we're seeing in this thread, but it'd be helpful to get an idea of where the models agree and disagree.

[Pants]

Did Covidly break? Every country is now an 8 or a 9.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Hong Kong University medical school has kept a running tally of what they believe the R0 of the virus is there. They got it as low as 0.4. So yes, I believe, it can be done.

And the model that you are talking about was assuming 50% social isolation, not 90%. That has been fairly extensively discussed on here over the last day.

If you have a virus with an R0 of 5.7 or 2.7 or 3.5 and you implement 90% of the population in social distancing then you will get the R0 below 1. The degree below one is of course dependent upon the R0, but 90% compliance to a therapy that was assuming 50% compliance will result in a fairly substantially different output, because as soon as I get that level of compliance, I'm already transmitting the virus to fewer people than currently have it, which, by definition, will move the peak in and flatten it.

Your thesis only applies if the R0 remains above 1 but below the critical threshold of the healthcare system.

But what they're saying is that it the R0 literally dropped to 1 overnight.
Because those models have been trending like crap from 24 hours of being released. They've NEVER been close. If they're claiming that the fact that they were off by 2-300% within 72 hours of releasing the model because of improved social distancing, then they're saying that the 90% was already happening and the R0 was down below 1 even prior to the study being released (because these are all lagging indicators).

And even if we're NOW at at R0 below 1 (I don't believe we are because again, history says it simply never happens in practice like it does on a spreadsheet), there are still lagging indicators all over that data and it STILL wouldn't explain how wildly disparate the changes were, even on a state to state basis.

Nor does it get into the fact that, again, the models lacked internal consistency. When the imperial college put forward its best case scenario and assumed complete social isolation, it didn't bring the peak forward.

You can't be off by that much, that fast and claim it was a result of a social behavior that wasn't even being demanded on a nationwide (or generally statewide) basis at the time your model was released. It simply doesn't work. Maybe had the models tracked for a week or even 2 and then went off the rails, I'd buy that.

But they were wrong immediately. And no, there's no way to say that a wholesale behavioral change that hadn't even been adopted yet caused that. Especially when they kept 'updating' the model mid-stream and still didn't think to address that claimed multiplier? Wouldn't that have been the first and most obvious target?

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Just in general, I wish that more of the models were made public (at the state level, too). I think they're all hesitant to do so because it invites the criticisms we're seeing in this thread, but it'd be helpful to get an idea of where the models agree and disagree.

I agree and I think one of the reasons they listed for not sharing the model is because the modelers wanted to stay anonymous. But they should at least release them.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Knock yourself out.

Easy. Yesterday:

https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/show...ostcount=17662

[AustinChief]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

If the most recent number is to be believed, an R0 of 5.7 would require 82% (IIRC) of the population to be infected to reach herd immunity. That would lead to a tremendously high peak if the virus is even close to as virulent as currently believed. Given what we've seen from isolated examples of a moderate sample size (cruise ships), such a contrastingly low severity of the virus is less likely.

So, your belief in one model over the other (even though either can fit the data) is based on what we have seen happen on cruise ships. That is as good a basis as any but it could still be a bad assumption. What were the demographic breakdowns? Pretty sure cruise ship passengers skew MUCH higher in age than the general population.

My point is, while there are certainly good reasons to favor one model over others, we should refrain from dismissing the others entirely when we are still so much in the dark.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Just in general, I wish that more of the models were made public (at the state level, too). I think they're all hesitant to do so because it invites the criticisms we're seeing in this thread, but it'd be helpful to get an idea of where the models agree and disagree.

But these benevolent, wise and noble scientists would never do things to insulate them from potentially constructive criticism.

They're just here to provide completely sterile, wholly objective data and would surely welcome eyes that might provide a viewpoint untarnished by ownership who could show them where they may be making faulty assumptions.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Just in general, I wish that more of the models were made public (at the state level, too). I think they're all hesitant to do so because it invites the criticisms we're seeing in this thread, but it'd be helpful to get an idea of where the models agree and disagree.

Hard telling what the right answer would be. The pragmatic side of me says from a public administration standpoint, 1 government position presented to the public would have a better chance of compliance of whatever they’re trying to implement.

You and me can handle multiple information sources and make a reasonable decision. I have my doubts that would scale to the rest of the population.

Spoilered some non-partisan comments that could be construed as DC, but I feel are prudent to this discussion. No I’ll-intent, but if you have to ban me, ban away.

Spoiler!

The worst case scenario is what is playing out on a bunch of different levels of government, politicizing it for political gain, from both sides. Morher****ers, you’re public servants. Do what’s in the best interest of your constituents, ya ****s. All of ya.