***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.”

[NotDonger]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Don't compare Covid-19 shots against measles or mumps vaccines for infection.

No comparison.

I'm not. I'm pointing out that if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that is does not provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity), all vaccines are "leaky" since no vaccines provide 100% efficacy.

Is that your definition of a "leaky" vaccine?

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Your own response from the author literally proved what he was saying.

We don't know at the moment how leaky these things are. It's conceivable that they are actually close to non-leaky.

No where in there does he say these vaccines aren't by definition leaky. Just that it could be conceivable that they are close to non leaky.

Correct. MM is just lying about it.

[NotDonger]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

Blather to deflect from your agenda. You lie constantly on this topic. It is a fact.

I can't address your point 2 because it isn't a known quantity at this point, as the author you use to define leaky vaccines so aptly points out in his own perfect rebuttal to your constant lies on the topic. So no need to even talk about it since you refuse to even address your sources rebuttal to your assertions on the topic.

Your point 1 is abstract and not germane to the discussion. It is merely a distraction from your constant lies.

What do the Germans have to do with this?

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by NotDonger

I'm not. I'm pointing out that if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that is does not provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity), all vaccines are "leaky" since no vaccines provide 100% efficacy.

Is that your definition of a "leaky" vaccine?

Read the paper yourself.

I can't do that for you. If you learn something, great.

[O.city]

Those vaccines are likely to have that high efficacy due to the high uptake of said vaccine. There's just not much measles mumps or rubella spreading because of it.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by NotDonger

What do the Germans have to do with this?

https://www.bing.com/search?form=MOZ...MOZI&q=germane

In case you aren't just being funny.

[Indian Chief]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Let me ask you something. Who is more likely to spread a virus?

A guy dying in bed who can barely move or a guy who feels a little off but goes about his normal activities?

That's a terrible question. There are so many unknown factors and variables in that equation. It could be either. If you have a point, make it. Don't be Donger. Which part of my post are you attempting to rebut?

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by NotDonger

I'm not. I'm pointing out that if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that is does not provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity), all vaccines are "leaky" since no vaccines provide 100% efficacy.

Is that your definition of a "leaky" vaccine?

So the question has to be. How effective does a vaccine have to be at preventing diseases or transmission to be considered non leaky?

What is the cutoff number? I think everyone can admit that the vaccines pre booster did not prevent infection or transmission at the efficiency of the other vaccines mentioned.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by O.city

Those vaccines are likely to have that high efficacy due to the high uptake of said vaccine. There's just not much measles mumps or rubella spreading because of it.

Ok, now you are confusing the hell out of me.

Do you believe the Covid-19 injections are effective at stopping infections...as well as the MMR?

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by O.city

Those vaccines are likely to have that high efficacy due to the high uptake of said vaccine. There's just not much measles mumps or rubella spreading because of it.

Interesting that Missouri has the lowest MMR vaccination rate at just 85.8%.

https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/...us-states.html

[NotDonger]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Read the paper yourself.

I can't do that for you. If you learn something, great.

I have read it. And if saying that some vaccines are "perfect" means that they prevent 100% of infections, that is false as shown above.

Again, if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that it doesn't provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity) then all vaccines are "leaky," including the COVID-19 vaccines.

Do you agree with that? if not, please present what your definition of a "leaky" vaccine is please.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

So the question has to be. How effective does a vaccine have to be at preventing diseases or transmission to be considered non leaky?

What is the cutoff number? I think everyone can admit that the vaccines pre booster did not prevent infection or transmission at the efficiency of the other vaccines mentioned.

I think it gets super tricky because based on the data I have seen it appears the covid 19 injections initially

1.Have negative efficacy for a week or two

2.Get some sort of protection after shot 2

3.Then whatever protection against infection was there declines rapidly.

So the definition of efficacy depends on the time window we are talking about.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by NotDonger

I have read it. And if saying that some vaccines are "perfect" means that they prevent 100% of infections, that is false as shown above.

Again, if the definition of a "leaky" vaccine is that it doesn't provide 100% efficacy (e.g., sterilizing immunity) then all vaccines are "leaky," including the COVID-19 vaccines.

Do you agree with that? if not, please present what your definition of a "leaky" vaccine is please.

Go review recent CDC statements and Bill Gates.

They have backtracked on this. Why are you pushing the old storyline?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Ok, now you are confusing the hell out of me.

Do you believe the Covid-19 injections are effective at stopping infections...as well as the MMR?

As effective? No probably not. If you had MMR uptake at 45-50 percent, maybe similar. I'm not sure though.

[NotDonger]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

So the question has to be. How effective does a vaccine have to be at preventing diseases or transmission to be considered non leaky?

What is the cutoff number? I think everyone can admit that the vaccines pre booster did not prevent infection or transmission at the efficiency of the other vaccines mentioned.

100% efficacy, which doesn't exist. So, hopefully we can agree that the "leakiness" of a vaccine increases as efficacy drops. For example, a really good flu season vaccine efficacy is something like 40%

Efficacy of the Pfizer vaccine was about 93% against the original strain. Less against Alpha and less against Delta. And wanes over time. So, I think it's accurate to say that it's always been "leaky" and is "leakier" against Alpha and Delta.