***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.”

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Yeah this whole take the shot to save Grandma needs to stop. The vaccine does not prevent spread.

It does, but not entirely.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by O.city

It does, but not entirely.

It does if we limit the time window and measure. If we just look at real world data and results, no.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Yeah this whole take the shot to save Grandma needs to stop. The vaccine does not prevent spread.

It does, indirectly, although not completely.



It makes one less likely to get the virus in the first place. If one isn't infected then one isn't passing it along.


If one does get the virus, the severity and duration will likely be lessened. That means less virus shedding over a shorter amount of time.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by loochy

It does, indirectly, although not completely.



It makes one less likely to get the virus in the first place. If one isn't infected then one isn't passing it along.


If one does get the virus, the severity and duration will likely be lessened. That means less virus shedding over a shorter amount of time.

If that is true how can cases be higher now in areas approaching 90% injected when last year there were no vaccines or few people had it.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by O.city

It does, but not entirely.

It's incredibly frustrating that the perception that's it doesn't is still so prevalent. Do a tiny bit of research, people! And your Facebook friends don't count.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

If that is true how can cases be higher now in areas approaching 90% injected when last year there were no vaccines or few people had it.

It's almost like there's been a new strain or something.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by DaFace

It's almost like there's been a new strain or something.

So you're saying they did work in the past to stop infection but do not now because the virus mutated (as they always do)?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

So you're saying they did work in the past to stop infection but do not now because the virus mutated (as they always do)?

Are you capable of understanding that there are numbers between 0% and 100%? You always seem to think everything is black and white, which makes trying to discuss anything with you a waste of time.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Are you capable of understanding that there are numbers between 0% and 100%? You always seem to think everything is black and white, which makes trying to discuss anything with you a waste of time.

It's definitely not black and white.

My personal view based on looking at the data is that

1.1st shot immediately after there is NEGATIVE efficacy. You are more likely to get infected

2.After 2nd shot there is a window of some protection

3.That Protection against infection rapidly declines approaching zero or less

The overall effect in a population appears to be zero.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

So you're saying they did work in the past to stop infection but do not now because the virus mutated (as they always do)?

They worked better through the aforementioned secondary methods early on against less transmissible strains....of course....if you get sick, you'll still be contagious. They never fully stopped infection, obviously.


I feel I should say that I'm totally against forced vax, but I am pro-choice vax. I can't say that I actually think this whole thing would be over if everyone vaxed, but it would be lessened by a large degree. Also, it's ridiculous to think that everyone in every country could be vaccinated, so the thing will continue to rage on there and travelers will continue to bring it back here. This can never end outside of some kind of 100%, one dose vaccine. There are too many holes otherwise.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by loochy

They worked better through the aforementioned secondary methods early on against less transmissible strains....of course....if you get sick, you'll still be contagious. They never fully stopped infection, obviously.


I feel I should say that I'm totally against forced vax, but I am pro-choice vax. I can't say that I actually think this whole thing would be over if everyone vaxed, but it would be lessened by a large degree. Also, it's ridiculous to think that everyone in every country could be vaccinated, so the thing will continue to rage on there and travelers will continue to bring it back here. This can never end outside of some kind of 100%, one dose vaccine. There are too many holes otherwise.

I am not here to argue for or against. I just think the only data now supporting the Covid 19 shots are for protection against death and hospitalizations, but even that is not randomized control numbers,.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

It's definitely not black and white.

My personal view based on looking at the data is that

1.1st shot immediately after there is NEGATIVE efficacy. You are more likely to get infected

2.After 2nd shot there is a window of some protection

3.That Protection against infection rapidly declines approaching zero or less

The overall effect in a population appears to be zero.

Please cite your sources.

[Donger]

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by DaFace

It's incredibly frustrating that the perception that's it doesn't is still so prevalent. Do a tiny bit of research, people! And your Facebook friends don't count.

if 1 person has 5% chance of getting it and 10% reduced chance of developing covid and spreading it (made up numbers for example) on an individual basis those don't look to impressive but if everyone around you is similar the protection as a whole can become exponential .

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by DaFace

It's incredibly frustrating that the perception that's it doesn't is still so prevalent. Do a tiny bit of research, people! And your Facebook friends don't count.

Yeah, those people that spread misinformation suck. I agree. But it's just as annoying when people shun any kind of questioning of the narrative.

This vid is a couple months old so if the data has changed since then I would be open to reviewing it.