***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.”

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Monticore

no if it infects the same demographics why would it kill less in texas?

well it has killed less in Texas for example. What I'm saying is if you extrapolate the number of Texas Cases like they have done with New Yorks, and since even less people have died in Texas (by all metrics) than New York.

The Texas CFR would drop below .5 right?

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

well it has killed less in Texas for example. What I'm saying is if you extrapolate the number of Texas Cases like they have done with New Yorks, and since even less people have died in Texas (by all metrics) than New York.

The Texas CFR would drop below .5 right?

You can't just make stuff up, if it infect 20 people in NY and 10 people in Texas the true CFR should be the same..

[TLO]

Everything's bigger in Texas...

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

well it has killed less in Texas for example. What I'm saying is if you extrapolate the number of Texas Cases like they have done with New Yorks, and since even less people have died in Texas (by all metrics) than New York.

The Texas CFR would drop below .5 right?

WE have 16 people infected and 0 deaths in my district, do you believe the CFR is 0?

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by Monticore

You can't just make stuff up, if it infect 20 people in NY and 10 people in Texas the true CFR should be the same..

Maybe I'm mixing mortality rate and CFR up. But Texas Mortality Rate is lower than NY's. If more people have been infected and not died than known about the mortality rate drops.

Hence the question im asking about the info I posted.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Monticore

WE have 16 people infected and 0 deaths in my district, do you believe the CFR is 0?

Do you have any meat processing plants in your district?

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Bearcat

2008 - Banks shoveled debt to people with proven records of not being able to take on the debt.
2020 - A pandemic started.

2008 - ...this somehow blindsided the economy when these people couldn't pay their mortgages.
2020 - People were asked to stay home.

2008 - People go broke and lose jobs due to the downsizing of the housing market (among other things).
2020 - People aren't able to work due to temporary closures for ~30-60 days.

2008 - People are forced to go on unemployment because they are laid off.
2020 - People are told they should go on unemployment due to the temporary closures.

2008 - ...and there's no guarantees of those jobs returning any time soon.
2020 - ...there's no hard evidence that the vast majority of jobs won't return.

2008 - Trying to return to normal, people don't have jobs and are possibly under water in mortgage debt.
2020 - Trying to return to normal, people go back to work, but are afraid of starting the 2nd wave of the pandemic.

2008 - The government sends $1000 to people who are filing bankruptcy and/or don't have jobs.
2020 - The government sends $1000 to people who are temporarily not working for 30-60 days at the jobs that still exist but are on hold.

Good effort but nope.

2008 - The government and Federal Reserve props up the domestic economy with massive debts taken on to create a hard floor on drastically inflated assets since the alternative was a total economic failure.

2020 - The government and Federal Reserve props up the domestic economy with massive debts taken on to create a hard floor on drastically inflated assets since the alternative was (is) a total economic failure.

In 2008 those assets were mortgage backed securities, their derivatives and the financial sector. In 2020 it's junk bonds, incredulously inflated equities and... the financial sector. Again.

We're already seeing layoffs in the 'safer' white collar space which will only cascade once large employers that can't make the ends meet for costs that aren't bailed out by EIDL/PPP or conventional bank lending. Those who aren't laid off are already seeing their paychecks take substantial haircuts.. as in the same thing that happened in the recovery from 2008 to 2016 as well as job creation rate that did not outpace the population rate (for reasons which should be obvious but is a topic for DC) as was the point where I linked the article from 2015 that you laughed off.

Spoiler!

With millions of newly unemployed Americans in the market for whatever jobs are out there, workers are likely to see their bargaining power sharply reduced – and it wasn’t great to start with.

Even during the record-long U.S. expansion that just ended, economists were debating why wages weren’t rising faster despite a historically low unemployment rate.

“When we get on the other side of the pandemic, it’s going to be a buyers’ market again for labor,” said Elise Gould at the Economic Policy Institute. “People will just be scrambling to get a job, any job.”

That’s pretty much how Simon in North Carolina feels, a couple of weeks into life as an unemployed father.

“I’m expecting to have a lower salary in whatever position I have next,” he said. “I would just be thankful if I can just get a marketing job in general. I mean, lower pay, higher pay, less benefits. Anything.”

But I'll just go ahead and get your response out of the way

DUNNING KRUGER DOOMSAYING FEARPORN

[stumppy]

You get an agenda and you get an agenda and you...

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by stumppy

You get an agenda and you get an agenda and you...

lmao speaking of people with a agenda

[O.city]

So the NY testing was taken in mid April, so that would mean the infections were present in mid March.

So in Mid March, there were 1.8 million infections in NYC. Whats the doubling time of this one?

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by O.city

So the NY testing was taken in mid April, so that would mean the infections were present in mid March.

So in Mid March, there were 1.8 million infections in NYC. Whats the doubling time of this one?

I don't know but I would assume this is a good thing, because while more deadly for older people it not nearly as bad as once thought.

If true its sub 1% which would be some really good news.

[Donger]

These darn old people dying and screwing up my agenda!

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

Maybe I'm mixing mortality rate and CFR up. But Texas Mortality Rate is lower than NY's. If more people have been infected and not died than known about the mortality rate drops.

Hence the question im asking about the info I posted.

Yes it goes lower but no matter how many people get infected the true CFR should stay the same, If New York had 3 times the infections (based off the serology testing) in theory they would also get 3 times the deaths.

The CFR of Influenza also includes people who get it with already a certain immunity/herd/flu shot/previously had it, which would reduce it's CFR because it reduces the severity.

It is very hard to actually come up with true numbers because there are soo many variables.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

I don't know but I would assume this is a good thing, because while more deadly for older people it not nearly as bad as once thought.

If true its sub 1% which would be some really good news.

For the overall population it would put it about 8 times as deadly as the flu. That's not ideal.

[Ninerfan11]

Originally Posted by Donger

These darn old people dying and screwing up my agenda!

Well, Sweden is definitely screwing up everything right now.