***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.”

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Nutjobs trying to sneak ivermectin into the hospital is political?

I guess the part about "and it's conservative republicans ****ing us over again" is not political. Nope, not political at all.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Lzen

I guess the part about "and it's conservative republicans ****ing us over again" is not political. Nope, not political at all.

I was on my phone over the weekend and didn't see the text in the image, but clearly that stuff makes it political.

Feel free to report things like that in the future so that more mods get eyes on it.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by Kiimosabi

Since when is J&J ineffective against Delta

Yeah, no kidding. I am really interested to hear this answer.

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I was on my phone over the weekend and didn't see the text in the image, but clearly that stuff makes it political.

Feel free to report things like that in the future so that more mods get eyes on it.

Thanks, DaFace. You're a standup guy. And I don't really have a problem with suzzer, just didn't care for that post and the thread rules.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Lzen

Yeah, no kidding. I am really interested to hear this answer.

I thought I read the efficiency of this vaccine was somewhere between 60-70% That is going from memory so I could be wrong.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

I thought I read the efficiency of this vaccine was somewhere between 60-70% That is going from memory so I could be wrong.

There's not as much data about the J&J vaccine with regard to Delta due to the smaller sample size. Directionally, though, it seems like it's still highly effective at preventing serious issues (e.g., hospitalization and death) even if it's somewhat less effective at preventing illness overall.

Definitely need more data, though.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Lzen

I guess the part about "and it's conservative republicans ****ing us over again" is not political. Nope, not political at all.

Ok fine. But that was one line buried in an image in the middle of the tweet that I didn't even notice. Based on the argument that ensued, I think you're the only one in the whole thread who actually read the whole thing.

Also I was only trying to post the bottom tweet. When you embed a tweet there's no way not to show the tweet it replies to.

I will look for one-liners buried in images in the future.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

If I was sick enough that my health was in danger and that is what my doctor recommends for treatment. Of course I would.

What if your doctor recommended something that would keep you from getting sick enough that your health is in danger?

[IA_Chiefs_fan]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Ok fine. But that was one line buried in an image in the middle of the tweet that I didn't even notice. Based on the argument that ensued, I think you're the only one in the whole thread who actually read the whole thing.

Also I was only trying to post the bottom tweet. When you embed a tweet there's no way not to show the tweet it replies to.

I will look for one-liners buried in images in the future.

Suzzer, I enjoy most of your posts, especially in this thread. I also didn't care for that specific post either but didn't feel like it was worth any drama. I'm only saying something so you know he wasn't the only one. Please don't stop posting though because I enjoy your perspective and input.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

What if your doctor recommended something that would keep you from getting sick enough that your health is in danger?

When my risk is so low of getting that sick. Then why would I take medicine I don't need. Especially a new type of medicine that has never been used before.

Plus there is data out there that people who have had covid are just as protected if not more than those that are just vaccinated.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

When my risk is so low of getting that sick. Then why would I take medicine I don't need. Especially a new type of medicine that has never been used before.

Plus there is data out there that people who have had covid are just as protected if not more than those that are just vaccinated.

That last bit is under review. Some studies say yes, some say protected, but lesser.

You also take your chances with getting long haul issues from having COVID, which happens to even mild cases.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

When my risk is so low of getting that sick. Then why would I take medicine I don't need. Especially a new type of medicine that has never been used before.

Plus there is data out there that people who have had covid are just as protected if not more than those that are just vaccinated.

Prevention is always going to be the best medicine, not getting a disease >getting a disease an hoping it doesn’t **** you up.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

When my risk is so low of getting that sick. Then why would I take medicine I don't need. Especially a new type of medicine that has never been used before.

Plus there is data out there that people who have had covid are just as protected if not more than those that are just vaccinated.

Just so I understand your position, these things are true for you? We'll set aside the mRNA discussion for the moment to keep things straightforward.

1. You won't take the J&J vaccine, which is not the best vaccine but uses long-established vaccine technology.
2. You'd rather get covid than take the J&J vaccine.

What do you think your odds are of getting illness or death from the J&J vaccine versus covid? Have you concluded that you're more likely to die from the vaccine than from the disease? Please show me the math that supports that conclusion.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

I am neither for or against the vaccines. I think everyone should weigh their own risks and decide for themselves.

And we live in a world where people choose their own facts before their weigh up their risks.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan

And we live in a world where people choose their own facts before their weigh up their risks.

Yes indeed.