***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 O.city

I've yet to really read anything that wasn't potentially a fraudulent study that shows much positive effect for Ivermectin. I'm not sure where this is all coming from.

I honestly don't understand it either and wish someone would explain it to me like I am five. We all wish, including myself, that there was a cheap single pill solution for covid but we have a free solution for it with the vaccine.

Yes hcq or Ivermectin have been around for a long time but they are experimental for covid so not sure I understand why taking those are acceptable but not the vaccines.

[Kiimo]

We could be hearing more soon:


https://apple.news/Axf2CjnPZTWe3aNCKdKPhPg

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I honestly don't understand it either and wish someone would explain it to me like I am five. We all wish, including myself, that there was a cheap single pill solution for covid but we have a free solution for it with the vaccine.

Yes hcq or Ivermectin have been around for a long time but they are experimental for covid so not sure I understand why taking those are acceptable but not the vaccines.

It is probably the fact that it can be a treatment. If you don't catch covid you don't need to take it. Why put drugs in your body if you don't need them type of thing. Kind of crazy that 18 or so months in to Covid we still don't have a standard protocol to treat covid once infected.

Also we know the effect of those drugs long term. You don't know the effect of this new vaccine on you long term. It is an entirely new method that has never been used before.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

It is probably the fact that it can be a treatment. If you don't catch covid you don't need to take it. Why put drugs in your body if you don't need them type of thing. Kind of crazy that 18 or so months in to Covid we still don't have a standard protocol to treat covid once infected.

Also we know the effect of those drugs long term. You don't know the effect of this new vaccine on you long term. It is an entirely new method that has never been used before.

I get that somewhat but for those drugs we don't know the short term or long-term effects of it in combination with Covid. So we are all taking chances because no one knows the long-term effects of covid, vaccines or any other drug used against it.

BTW Pfizer and Merck are coming out with a pill here soon it sounds like

Sept 1 (Reuters) - Pfizer Inc (PFE.N) and Merck & Co Inc (MRK.N) announced on Wednesday new trials of their experimental oral antiviral drugs for COVID-19 as the race to develop an easy-to-administer treatment for the potentially fatal illness heats up.

Pfizer said its latest mid-to-late-stage trial will enroll 1,140 non-hospitalized adults diagnosed with coronavirus infection who are not at risk of severe illness. Patients in the trial will be given Pfizer's pill, known as PF-07321332, and a low dose of ritonavir, an older medication widely used in combination treatments for HIV infection.

Pfizer's drug is designed to block the activity of a key enzyme that is needed for the coronavirus to multiply.

Merck said its new trial will study experimental drug molnupiravir for the prevention of COVID-19 among adults in the same household as someone diagnosed with symptomatic coronavirus infection. Merck and partner Ridgeback Biotherapeutics are already conducting a late-stage trial of the treatment in non-hospitalized patients to see if it reduces the risk of hospitalization or death.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by O.city

I've yet to really read anything that wasn't potentially a fraudulent study that shows much positive effect for Ivermectin. I'm not sure where this is all coming from.

This study seems to indicate Ivermectin can cause sterility.

https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary....s-patients.pdf

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

I get that somewhat but for those drugs we don't know the short term or long-term effects of it in combination with Covid. So we are all taking chances because no one knows the long-term effects of covid, vaccines or any other drug used against it.

BTW Pfizer and Merck are coming out with a pill here soon it sounds like

With how long these drugs have been used for multiple illnesses. That is like saying we don't know the effect of Tylenol in combination with covid. Yes there is a risk with any drug but some have a very long track record with tons of research.

[OnTheWarpath15]

Originally Posted by KCUnited

I think the mane reason is to buck the vaccination push by the CDC.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

It is probably the fact that it can be a treatment. If you don't catch covid you don't need to take it. Why put drugs in your body if you don't need them type of thing. Kind of crazy that 18 or so months in to Covid we still don't have a standard protocol to treat covid once infected.

Also we know the effect of those drugs long term. You don't know the effect of this new vaccine on you long term. It is an entirely new method that has never been used before.

Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by TLO

Gahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

Please tell me the long term studies that have been done on the new vaccines.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Please tell me the long term studies that have been done on the new vaccines.

We have like 14 months of data on people who have gotten the mRNA vaccines. In the history of vaccines, there has never been a significant safety signal that has appeared beyond like 4 or 8 weeks of vaccination. What exactly are you concerned about?

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by TLO

We have like 14 months of data on people who have gotten the mRNA vaccines. In the history of vaccines, there has never been a significant safety signal that has appeared beyond like 4 or 8 weeks of vaccination. What exactly are you concerned about?

How many of those vaccines used mrna technology? We are in uncharted territory. So to make that claim based on past vaccines is very disingenuous.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Kiimosabi

We could be hearing more soon:


https://apple.news/Axf2CjnPZTWe3aNCKdKPhPg

Yup...

Ivermectin had some promising early results against the virus in petri dishes and in smaller and observational studies, but it still hasn’t aced a trial. Of two apparent large-scale confirmations of its effects, one (a preprint from researchers in Egypt) got retracted over concerns about plagiarism and fake data. Scientists and journalists at BuzzFeed have found irregularities in the data from another. A separate, positive review of all the data on ivermectin was rejected from a journal after provisional acceptance for concerns about research integrity and conflicts of interest, while a strict meta-analysis of all the randomized, controlled trials of ivermectin against Covid found no positive effect for the drug. The FDA says people shouldn’t take it. The American Medical Association and two pharmacist associations have issued a statement recommending that none of their members prescribe ivermectin for Covid-19 outside of a clinical trial.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

This study seems to indicate Ivermectin can cause sterility.

https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary....s-patients.pdf

Darwinism is often immediate, but sometimes very patient.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

It is probably the fact that it can be a treatment. If you don't catch covid you don't need to take it. Why put drugs in your body if you don't need them type of thing. Kind of crazy that 18 or so months in to Covid we still don't have a standard protocol to treat covid once infected.

Also we know the effect of those drugs long term. You don't know the effect of this new vaccine on you long term. It is an entirely new method that has never been used before.

If your bar for taking a drug is that "I don't think it will hurt," there are literally thousands of them out there you could try. Almost none of them will make any difference, but hey, it doesn't hurt, right?

It doesn't make sense that one of hundreds being studied is suddenly in such high demand that people are going out of their way to get it without even consulting their doctor about it.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

How many of those vaccines used mrna technology? We are in uncharted territory. So to make that claim based on past vaccines is very disingenuous.

I'll keep trying to combat the misperception that vaccines aren't safe in the long-term. We have literally never in the history of mankind had any vaccine that had side effects that didn't show up at first and did down the road. Ever. This is not debatable, and anyone who claims otherwise is wrong.

Worried about mRNA? You shouldn't be, but the J&J vaccine uses the tried and true method. It's less effective, but if you want an approach that seems less novel, there it is. Fears over "new technology" aren't a reasonable excuse to avoid getting vaccinated.