***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.”

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Chitownchiefsfan

Do you know what the numbers like this look like for in Illinois? I know Chicago and suburbs are really big on social distancing and masks. I live in the burbs now and its been ages since I've seen someone in store wo a mask.

That's sort of where I was leading. I can't go anywhere anymore without seeing people wearing a mask, even in their ****ing cars. So when someone just says "this proves masks work" I have to call a degree of BS. More people are wearing masks in this country than ever before and cases are not going down, or really going up a lot either but I think you get the point.

I think there is an over-reliance on masks if you get my meaning. They are nota silver bullet and it could probably be argued that increased mask wearing hasn't necessarily reduced cases but I don't know that you can ever obtain that kind of data.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

That's sort of where I was leading. I can't go anywhere anymore without seeing people wearing a mask, even in their ****ing cars. So when someone just says "this proves masks work" I have to call a degree of BS. More people are wearing masks in this country than ever before and cases are not going down, or really going up a lot either but I think you get the point.

I think there is an over-reliance on masks if you get my meaning. They are nota silver bullet and it could probably be argued that increased mask wearing hasn't necessarily reduced cases but I don't know that you can ever obtain that kind of data.

Here in Clinton, less and less people are wearing masks and we are getting multiple cases a day for such a small area. We even had a bunch reported yesterday from school infections.

When I go up to KC I actually feel alot more safe because most people are wearing them.

[Donger]

We don't really have guess about the efficacy of masks when we have things like this:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

Here in Clinton, less and less people are wearing masks and we are getting multiple cases a day for such a small area. We even had a bunch reported yesterday from school infections.

When I go up to KC I actually feel alot more safe because most people are wearing them.

If your point is not wearing masks leads to bad things I would agree. But my point was when someone posts a stat that X is better than Y you can't just cast a blanket statement that masks are the reason. They could be, they could be part and they could not be in some cases.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

We don't really have guess about the efficacy of masks when we have things like this:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm

Thanks but that has nothing to do with what the discussion is.....

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Donger

We don't really have guess about the efficacy of masks when we have things like this:

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6928e2.htm

yeah you would think that like SD, using masks would be common sense at this point.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Thanks but that has nothing to do with what the discussion is.....

So when someone just says "this proves masks work" I have to call a degree of BS

That study proves masks work. That's all.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

yeah you would think that like SD, using masks would be common sense at this point.

Question is how do you know in the case of CA vs. Texas it was strictly because of masks?

How do you know a lot of the people who died in Tx didn't wear masks? I mean is it possible people wore masks and still got Covid and died?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

So when someone just says "this proves masks work" I have to call a degree of BS

That study proves masks work. That's all.

You're assuming one side wore masks and the other didn't without any evidence. That's my point and you know it. Now go away.

[petegz28]

And if masks are to prevent getting it then how does less cases but more deaths = people weren't wearing masks?

That would clearly imply that wearing a mask doesn't prevent you from getting it but prevents you from dying which is silly.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

If your point is not wearing masks leads to bad things I would agree. But my point was when someone posts a stat that X is better than Y you can't just cast a blanket statement that masks are the reason. They could be, they could be part and they could not be in some cases.

I would agree they aren't the sole reason; you still need to SD, wash your hands, and stay away from indoor places like restaurants and bars while still wearing your mask.

I just get pissed when you go somewhere and people aren't wearing masks and they are coughing and hacking everywhere. It is like..jfc are you that ****ing stupid.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I would agree they aren't the sole reason; you still need to SD, wash your hands, and stay away from indoor places like restaurants and bars while still wearing your mask.

I just get pissed when you go somewhere and people aren't wearing masks and they are coughing and hacking everywhere. It is like..jfc are you that ****ing stupid.

That must be a Clinton thing because I rarely see anyone without a mask unless it is outdoors.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You're assuming one side wore masks and the other didn't without any evidence. That's my point and you know it. Now go away.

No, I'm not, because I've read the study. I don't need to assume:

Among 139 clients exposed to two symptomatic hair stylists with confirmed COVID-19 while both the stylists and the clients wore face masks

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

No, I'm not, because I've read the study. I don't need to assume:

Among 139 clients exposed to two symptomatic hair stylists with confirmed COVID-19 while both the stylists and the clients wore face masks

..well that settles it...no one in TX is wearing masks so while they have less cases than CA where everyone wears a mask and shouldn't get it at all....they have more deaths.

You convinced me.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by petegz28

And if masks are to prevent getting it then how does less cases but more deaths = people weren't wearing masks?

That would clearly imply that wearing a mask doesn't prevent you from getting it but prevents you from dying which is silly.

I know you have a very clear agenda when it comes to masks so maybe that's reason you just posted this.

There have been numerous discussions about the potential of masks decreasing the initial viral load the wearer receives leading to milder outcomes.