***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.”

[KCUnited]

Restrictions should follow rates of infection and hospital capacity levels

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

Restrictions should follow rates of infection and hospital capacity levels

FYP....

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Actually, I'm saying that the people who get vaccinated will still have a 5 percent vulnerability if they go back to normal, which may be higher than their current vulnerability if they're staying home. So the vaccinated people may actually produce an uptick in cases.

As more people get vaccinated, that 5 percent will go down to a miniscule amount as the spread lowers, so it's really an early adopter problem.

Whole discussion is moot until it's clear a vaccinated person won't be capable of transmitting it through indirect and brief contact with the susceptible.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Whole discussion is moot until it's clear a vaccinated person won't be capable of transmitting it through indirect and brief contact with the susceptible.

No, I'm talking about getting it as a vaccinated person. If the vaccine is 95 percent effective, that means that 5 percent of vaccinated people can still get it. For someone like me who's basically a hermit right now, a 5 percent vulnerability is probably higher than I'm experiencing right now. If 100 people like me get vaccinated and go out into society, more of us will get the virus than we will if we remain hermits in our thatched-roof huts in the woods.

Again, it's a very temporary potential phenomenon because exposure will drop as the vaccines become more widespread, but I think it's a legitimate theory.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

No, I'm talking about getting it as a vaccinated person. If the vaccine is 95 percent effective, that means that 5 percent of vaccinated people can still get it. For someone like me who's basically a hermit right now, a 5 percent vulnerability is probably higher than I'm experiencing right now.

Given personal motives for vaccination are irrelevant, what's more important:

A) Limiting the number of fatalities and overall severity of illness in the infected

or

B) Limiting the total overall number of infected.

[kgrund]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Whole discussion is moot until it's clear a vaccinated person won't be capable of transmitting it through indirect and brief contact with the susceptible.

One would think that someone vaccinated is not likely to shed a significant amount of viral load sufficient to get someone really sick, but that just seems to be a common sense guess.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

You really just proved the argument I was making. It isn't about "pleasing" people, Donger. Though I am not shocked that's how you see it.

Is there really an argument to be made? It's very clear that some people are just miserable ****s.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

Is there really an argument to be made? It's very clear that some people are just miserable ****s.

Well, you are a miserable ****, I would agree. Some people don't want the vaccine and don't want restrictions. Go figure.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Given personal motives for vaccination are irrelevant, what's more important:

A) Limiting the number of fatalities and overall severity of illness in the infected

or

B) Limiting the total overall number of infected.

A.

However, this is unrelated to my point, which is way over there. My points are apparently really mobile today.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Well, you are a miserable ****, I would agree. Some people don't want the vaccine and don't want restrictions. Go figure.

Yes, pete. That's what makes them miserable ****s.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

Yes, pete. That's what makes them miserable ****s.

No, that means they don't think they should be forced to have something injected into them so they can live life without being locked down or otherwise restricted.

What makes you a miserable **** is you are a miserable ****.

[petegz28]

Don't worry, Donger, once you get your vaccine you won't need to worry about controlling everyone else and worrying if they wear a mask or not when they eat inside.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

No, that means they don't think they should be forced to have something injected into them so they can live life without being locked down or otherwise restricted.

What makes you a miserable **** is you are a miserable ****.

They are free to take it or not. If if they choose not to and still bitch about restrictions, guess what?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Donger

They are free to take it or not. If if they choose not to and still bitch about restrictions, guess what?

As expected it went right over your head. Then again once you get vaccinated what do you care if they wear a mask or not???

You need to worry less about them and more about you.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Don't worry, Donger, once you get your vaccine you won't need to worry about controlling everyone else and worrying if they wear a mask or not when they eat inside.

I don't control anyone besides myself.

How's that Thanksgiving backlog looking, by the way?