***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.”

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Donger

Do you live in a state which is presently seeing a large spike in cases and positivity?

He lives here in MO. Our cases are going up.

I follow someone who gets their numbers directly from the county Health Departments.

I was able to identify 1,330 cases from 78 jurisdictions and 35 deaths today.

We’re averaging 15 deaths per day over the last week, we are at an all-time high for the 7-day moving average of new cases per day

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I don't get the flu, at least not in any way I associate how others get the flu so I am really not too concerned about getting a covid vaccine either.

Another person who doesn’t understand the reason to get a flu vaccine, even if you never get the flu.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Donger

Do you live in a state which is presently seeing a large spike in cases and positivity?

I live in your head. It's quite the case.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

I live in your head. It's quite the case.

It's already been answered, part of the problem...

[TLO]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

He lives here in MO. Our cases are going up.

I follow someone who gets their numbers directly from the county Health Departments.

I followed the same guy for a while, but he seems to be a bit of alarmist. I understand he pulls his data from local health departments, but local health departments often go back and revise their information days, weeks, or even months past the reporting date sometimes. I'm not sure how it would even be possible for him to keep up with the corrections and alterations.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

I get the concept. But you realize there are plenty of 32-year-olds with lingering and possibly permanent heart and lung damage from this right? I'm not sure why you are more worried about the vaccine than that.

Scientific American: COVID-19 Can Wreck Your Heart, Even if You Haven’t Had Any Symptoms

Originally Posted by TLO

The heart stuff is somewhat concerning, but it still seems pretty anecdotal at this point. I'm optimistic it won't turn out to be anything that happens with any great regularity.

FWIW - A bunch of people that seem fairly knowledgeable on the topic ripped this article up and pissed on it in the reddit science forum.

This is an irresponsible article that isn't grounded on any concrete evidence.

How can Scientific American allow such claims to be written based on a Preprint that's based on 3 autopsies and no meaningful control, and no mention that heart damage may have predated infection? They also killed cells in test tubes with the virus; orange juice might have had the same effect.

Some of these ”scientisits” writing this stuff have officially lost it.

This is a weird article. I'm not going to pick it apart, but on its surface the claim that "COVID-19 Can Wreck Your Heart, Even if You Haven’t Had Any Symptoms" implies:

That this is a known, definite feature of the virus that happens to a substantial number of people who catch it (not just people who end up in the hospital).
That your heart will be converted to a useless lump of meat.
That this all will often happen without any indication that there is any kind of problem.
That all cases of COVID-19 myocarditis are of significant severity.
In practice, myocarditis is rather difficult to diagnose with accuracy, and is highly heterogeneous in its presentation and prognosis. Cardiac sequelae to acute viral infections aren't strange, either. A more toned-down version of this claim would be that COVID-19 myocarditis warrants immediate investigation to determine frequency and severity of cardiac sequelae, which is true but not as punchy, I guess. It's also a message to research, not the general public.

As a message to the general public, I'm not sure what this is trying to say. That COVID-19 patients should be afraid? That people should try to avoid getting the virus? I don't know, from a public eye it sounds like "be worried, worse things are coming," which doesn't really help at this point, I think.

One thing in particular stood out to me (partially because, whenever I see an unqualified "as many as" statement, a horn blares in my mind):

According to some reports, as many as 7 percent of deaths from COVID-19 may result from myocarditis. (Others feel that estimate is too high.)

What is the actual reasonable range, here? One of the research papers she links notes:

The prevalence of myocarditis among COVID-19 patients is unclear, partly because the early reports often lacked the specific diagnostic modalities to assess myocarditis. Some argued that up to 7% of COVID-19–related deaths were attributable to myocarditis. However, this was assumed and not based on confirmatory diagnoses of myocarditis and thus may be an overestimate.

This seems like a pretty important thing to overlook in a discussion of myocarditis involvement.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by lewdog

Another person who doesn’t understand the reason to get a flu vaccine, even if you never get the flu.

Thats pretty stupid Lew.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by lewdog

Another person who doesn’t understand the reason to get a flu vaccine, even if you never get the flu.

Exactly.


The reason to get a flu vaccine is for the government to track us with 5g.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by loochy

Exactly.


The reason to get a flu vaccine is for the government to track us with 5g.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by TLO

FWIW - A bunch of people that seem fairly knowledgeable on the topic ripped this article up and pissed on it in the reddit science forum.

There's still plenty to be worried about wrt to long term health issues. I wouldn't want to be that Swedish guy I know. He's hoping to improve, and he may. But he doesn't know if this could be permanent and he'll never be able to run again.

I don't understand this attitude of "I'm not going to worry about it until the facts are in" when the stakes are so personally high, and there are plenty of anecdotes of long term heart/lung damage. Not saying you have that attitude, but some do.

I'd rather be super-cautious until we know that the long term health risks are miniscule.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

There's still plenty to be worried about wrt to long term health issues. I wouldn't want to be that Swedish guy I know. He's hoping to improve, and he may. But he doesn't know if this could be permanent and he'll ever be able to run again.

I don't understand this attitude of "I'm not going to worry about it until the facts are in" when the stakes are so personally high, and there are plenty of anecdotes of long term heart/lung damage.

I'm not going to worry about it because it accomplishes nothing for me.

There were/still are plenty of anecdotal reports that hydroxycloriquine works as a treatment. Doesn't mean it's true.

Anecdotal reports mean very little overall

[loochy]

Originally Posted by TLO

I'm not going to worry about it because it accomplishes nothing for me.

You've come a long way buddy.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by TLO

I'm not going to worry about it because it accomplishes nothing for me.

There were/still are plenty of anecdotal reports that hydroxycloriquine works as a treatment. Doesn't mean it's true.

Anecdotal reports mean very little overall

Excellent post and rep to you even. This is something I have pointed out for weeks. People will latch onto any negative anecdotal evidence and swear by it but quickly dismiss any positive anecdotal evidence.

Great post, TLO!

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by TLO

I'm not going to worry about it because it accomplishes nothing for me.

It helps me stay vigilant* when there's a lot of temptation to slip and just start going back to normal. We're all sick of this thing. I see a lot of people around me just giving up and pretending it's over basically.

*This risky visit I just had with my family in Denver notwithstanding. Never again until covid is over. I'm not going back to KC for Christmas this year.

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Thats pretty stupid Lew.

You clearly don’t get it if your marker for not getting the flu vaccine is because you’ve never had it.

I honestly though this thinking died decades ago.