***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.”

[TLO]

Stolen from someone elsewhere

So if I’m interpreting the new data correctly, both COVID-19 afflicted patients and risk matched controls had a relatively similar level of MRI-detectable cardiovascular abnormalities. This means that’s while it is possible that individuals who have recovered from SARS-CoV-2 infection may have higher heart abnormalities, the vast majority is driven by the risk factors that make them susceptible to infection in the first place

[Kidd Lex]

Originally Posted by TLO

Stolen from someone elsewhere

We don't have to rewrite the textbooks take 10

[O.city]

Those big 10 players and coaches may be a tad upset.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

Those big 10 players and coaches may be a tad upset.

Are you implying they have an agenda?

[FD]

Originally Posted by Donger

And what was/is the reason for the change?

The C.D.C. was pressured to change guidance on testing asymptomatic people who had been exposed to the virus.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was instructed by higher-ups within the Trump administration to modify its coronavirus testing guidelines this week to exclude people who do not have symptoms of Covid-19 — even if they have been recently exposed to the virus, according to two federal health officials.

One official said the directive came from the top down. Another said the guidelines were not written by the C.D.C. but were imposed.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/w...#link-75471d37

[O.city]

Well, if thats the case, thats not good.

[TLO]

If Missouri could go ahead and start knocking down that 7 day positivity % that'd be great.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by FD

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/w...#link-75471d37

There is literally no reason to test people who have been exposed who are asymptomatic. You quarantine them and move on. This has been the practice in most places the whole time unless there is a specific need to test someone outside of normal protocols. Its waste of resources.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by FD

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/26/w...#link-75471d37

Unless it's been proven with 100% certainty that there is not asymptomatic spread, that makes no sense.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

Well, if thats the case, thats not good.

Haven't it been pointed out the PCR test cannot distinguish between an active and inactive asymptomatic cases?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Donger

Unless it's been proven with 100% certainty that there is not asymptomatic spread, that makes no sense.

What part of that's been the general practice already do you not understand?

Testing asymptomatic close contacts is a waste of time. You have to wait until 10 days before the test means anything due to potential incubation time and quarantine is only 14 days.

If they become symptomatic it "might" be useful to test but really not even then because you just need to wait so many days after symptoms are gone and move on.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Haven't it been pointed out the PCR test cannot distinguish between an active and inactive asymptomatic cases?

Yes.

Would be nice to be able to test if someone is currently shedding virus.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

What part of that's been the general practice already do you not understand?

Testing asymptomatic close contacts is a waste of time. You have to wait until 10 days before the test means anything due to potential incubation time and quarantine is only 14 days.

If they become symptomatic it "might" be useful to test but really not even then because you just need to wait so many days after symptoms are gone and move on.

Unless I'm missing something, it WAS recommended by the CDC that asymptomatic people who had been in contact with a infectious person be tested. That has now changed.

Am I wrong?

[Donger]

From the NYT link:

But Dr. Giroir made the case that getting tested soon after you are exposed to the virus is pointless because it can take several days for the virus to show on a test.

“A negative test on Day 2 doesn’t mean you’re negative,” he said. “So what is the value of that? It doesn’t mean on Day 4 you can go out and visit grandma or Day 6 go without a mask.” He added, “We’re trying to get appropriate testing, not less testing.”

Okay, so it takes "several days" for an infected person to show the positive. So why doesn't the new guidance include that caveat?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Donger

Unless I'm missing something, it WAS recommended by the CDC that asymptomatic people who had been in contact with a infectious person be tested. That has now changed.

Am I wrong?

Look man, its not been the practice and I explained why it made no sense. Just because CDC recommended it prior doesn't mean it was actually happening or it was sound logic. As you know they have only contradicted themselves 5 or 6 times already.

I've only been dealing with this every day since April but I am sure you read something somewhere after your google search to the contrary.