***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.”

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

.

Pete posted that information, not me. Are you under the impression that the IFR is the same in every state and region?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Donger

Pete posted that information, not me. Are you under the impression that the IFR is the same in every state and region?

Are you under the impression I ever implied that?
Are you under the impression that outside of the NE the IFR is much lower?
Are you under the impression the IFR isn't massively lower under the age of 65?

Stop asking stupid questions.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Are you under the impression I ever implied that?
Are you under the impression that outside of the NE the IFR is much lower?
Are you under the impression the IFR isn't massively lower under the age of 65?

Stop asking stupid questions.

Yes, you did imply that. Why else did you decide to try to make a point about the 1.07% IFR in Kansas versus the CDC best estimate (nationally) of .65%?

Again, do you dispute the CDC best estimate IFR of .65% or not? If so, why do you dispute it?

You claimed that my pointing out that that estimate exists is spin. Explain yourself, or be quiet.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes, you did imply that. Why else did you decide to try to make a point about the 1.07% IFR in Kansas versus the CDC best estimate (nationally) of .65%?

Again, do you dispute the CDC best estimate IFR of .65% or not? If so, why do you dispute it?

You claimed that my pointing out that that estimate exists is spin. Explain yourself, or be quiet.

I pointed out the obvious fact that the 1.07 wasn't accurate, you then tried to argue with me, you then provided evidence it isn't accurate. Feel free to be dumb enough to believe Kansas IFR is almost double the national average for .......reasons.

It went amazingly similar to our last discussion on Europe's spikes that you proved me right on and tried arguing afterwards.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I pointed out the obvious fact that the 1.07 wasn't accurate, you then tried to argue with me, you then provided evidence it isn't accurate.

It went amazingly similar to our last discussion on Europe's spikes that you proved me right on and tried arguing afterwards.

How do you know that the Kansas IFR listed in pete's source isn't accurate? How did you make that determination, doc?

No, providing the CDC best estimate of .65% nationally didn't provide evidence that the 1.07% is inaccurate at all. As you seem to understand, IFR isn't consistent in every state.

You are terrible at this.

Again, do you dispute that the CDC best estimate is .65% or not?

[BigCatDaddy]

JFC.

[Discuss Thrower]

"Oops."

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

"Oops."

What was it before the above revision?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I pointed out the obvious fact that the 1.07 wasn't accurate, you then tried to argue with me, you then provided evidence it isn't accurate. Feel free to be dumb enough to believe Kansas IFR is almost double the national average for .......reasons...and things.....and stuff

It went amazingly similar to our last discussion on Europe's spikes that you proved me right on and tried arguing afterwards.

FYP...

[petegz28]

So the 7 day average of new deaths is well under the 1,800 needed to meet the IHME's latest model of 400,000 dead by 1/1/21.

I think the IHME might be off a skosh...by about 1,000 deaths a day or so

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by petegz28

So the 7 day average of new deaths is well under the 1,800 needed to meet the IHME's latest model of 400,000 dead by 1/1/21.

I think the IHME might be off a skosh...by about 1,000 deaths a day or so

Its hard to figure out how with the IFR dropping like a rock from the only time frame we had that many deaths, how its suddenly going to skyrocket and do it for 3.5 months straight. We haven't had anything close to a death rate like that for near that long but now, now its just going to off. Because of things.....and stuff.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Its hard to figure out how with the IFR dropping like a rock from the only time frame we had that many deaths, how its suddenly going to skyrocket and do it for 3.5 months straight. We haven't had anything close to a death rate like that for near that long but now, now its just going to off. Because of things.....and stuff.

And reasons!! Don't forget REASONS!!

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

So the 7 day average of new deaths is well under the 1,800 needed to meet the IHME's latest model of 400,000 dead by 1/1/21.

I think the IHME might be off a skosh...by about 1,000 deaths a day or so

I haven't really paid much attention to models recently but when I saw that projection the other day I thought it was really high. But then you go back and look at their projection history and they seem to underestimate quite a bit what actually happened.

This is pretty cool and it looks at all the covid forecasts.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/covid-forecasts/

[TLO]

Missouri's positivity rate is continuing in the right direction.

11.1% over the past 7 days.

[TLO]

One of our local doctors said that the majority of patients in our hospital at the moment are "middle aged working people".

What exactly defines middle age?