***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.”

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by O.city

It does but they apparently need thousands of studies to confirm

Pretty much.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by O.city

It does but they apparently need thousands of studies to confirm

So they're saying the shot DOES stop transmission now, or they just think (hope) it might until they have X amount of feedback on it?

[Chief Pagan]

It probably does a pretty good job of stopping transmission of the original virus for which the vaccines work really well.

It probably doesn't do near as good at stopping transmission of the mutated viruses that are not yet that common in the US but soon will be.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Bowser

So they're saying the shot DOES stop transmission now, or they just think (hope) it might until they have X amount of feedback on it?

There's not really historical precedent for a vaccine stopping illness but not stopping transmission. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? Not really.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Bowser

So they're saying the shot DOES stop transmission now, or they just think (hope) it might until they have X amount of feedback on it?

Apparently the Israelis have good news about Pfizer. Here's a random link that summarizes it:

https://www.abcactionnews.com/news/c...israel-studies

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by DaFace

There's not really historical precedent for a vaccine stopping illness but not stopping transmission. Could it happen? Sure. Is it likely? Not really.

But as I understand it, this shot doesn't stop you from getting the illness, transmitting it if you have it, or even getting it a second time down the road if you've already had it, it just mutes the symptoms if you have it? And that's not even speaking of possible mutations to the virus?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Bowser

But as I understand it, this shot doesn't stop you from getting the illness, transmitting it if you have it, or even getting it a second time down the road if you've already had it, it just mutes the symptoms if you have it? And that's not even speaking of possible mutations to the virus?

It probably does all of those things. We just haven't had time to definitively conclude it.

The only one that is probably a bit true is that it likely doesn't last forever.

[suzzer99]

From everything I've read they expect vaccines to last longer and provide more protection than getting sick from covid. But both could be enough to make it so you never get very sick from it again - or at least not for 20-30 years or something.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

From everything I've read they expect vaccines to last longer and provide more protection than getting sick from covid. But both could be enough to make it so you never get very sick from it again - or at least not for 20-30 years or something.

Can you provide the links to that?

I would expect a natural infection to be more protective at this point.

[dirk digler]

When I was thinking about getting the vaccine I had a preference of Moderna over Pfizer but I am very glad I got the Pfizer vaccine. As more and more data comes out I get more impressed. That vaccine and most likely Moderna have proven to be very very effective and safe.

Good news on transmission blocking keeps coming. One dose of Pfizer lead to a 75% reduction in a study of thousands of a healthcare workers.

Single dose of Pfizer BioNTech vaccine reduces asymptomatic infections and potential for SARS-CoV-2 transmission https://t.co/mgVdm13WrC

— Aris Katzourakis 💙 (for UCU NEC) (@ArisKatzourakis) February 26, 2021

[O.city]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Can you provide the links to that?

I would expect a natural infection to be more protective at this point.

I doubt it.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by O.city

I doubt it.

Well, we already know this exists naturally.


Public Health England has partnered with diagnostics company Oxford Immunotec to recruit thousands of people in an effort to find out if they have acquired T-cell immunity to Covid-19.

The new trial follows recent research that showed people infected with a Sars virus similar to Covid-19 developed T-cell immunity that can act up to 17 years, meaning far more people may be immune for a long period of time.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...c-b533312.html

[O.city]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Well, we already know this exists naturally.


Public Health England has partnered with diagnostics company Oxford Immunotec to recruit thousands of people in an effort to find out if they have acquired T-cell immunity to Covid-19.

The new trial follows recent research that showed people infected with a Sars virus similar to Covid-19 developed T-cell immunity that can act up to 17 years, meaning far more people may be immune for a long period of time.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...c-b533312.html

I would venture to say the polyclonal antibodies produced via vaccination, along with the strong T cell reaction are going to prove to be a stronger sterilizing immunity vs natural infection. Plus, you've got to actually get infected which puts recovery up in the air.

What you showed there doesn't really show much of what you're trying to say.

[O.city]

You love to see it.

Vaccine effect clearer every day in the UK. Amazing how much faster hospital admissions & deaths are falling in older groups than younger.

These are on a log scale, so steepening descent means rate of decrease among vaccinated groups grows every day ������ pic.twitter.com/qwa4slGc0f

— John Burn-Murdoch (@jburnmurdoch) February 26, 2021

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by O.city

I would venture to say the polyclonal antibodies produced via vaccination, along with the strong T cell reaction are going to prove to be a stronger sterilizing immunity vs natural infection. Plus, you've got to actually get infected which puts recovery up in the air.

What you showed there doesn't really show much of what you're trying to say.

Hey, that would be great. Of course there is no more evidence for this now.

That's a completely different topic and is a change of subject.

This document talks about safer vs better. I am only discussing BETTER immunity.

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/m...y_479884_7.pdf

General Responses:
It is true that natural infection almost always causes better immunity than vaccines.