***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.”

[suzzer99]

It's not innate immunity. It's about people like me, who work from home and pretty much only go to the grocery store, who aren't really part of the potentially infected pool.

They're saying that traditional herd immunity assumes people go about their business. But this is the first pandemic where people are seriously isolating in significant numbers - which is effectively like taking us out of the equation.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by O.city

If there is that much innate immunity, even with opening everything up, the models would have to correct for it and things would be alot different. It's all about chains in transmission and with that much stoppage points, it's not like a brush fire.

At this point, we just don't know for sure.

They also kinda missed on the modeling where people are ping pong balls bouncing all around. For the most part, we have our select groups and areas we go.

So what you are saying is it may only hit 20% because people only interact with so many people in their life not because of built in immunity?

I guess that possible and I think an epidemiologist brought that up way back in March. That being said does it matter that much why it peaks at 20% as long as we know it does?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I guess you missed the memo, Donger only deals in "facts". Sure they are only his interpretation of "facts" but that doesn't stop him making the claim repeatedly.

When they are available, yes, of course. Here's an example:

https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/show...&postcount=183

Great. So, we can look at those manly numbers, right?

We have 137,000 dead already with mitigation efforts.

I've given you the herder death estimates, based ~50% infection rate, IFR and R0 = 990,000

You claim that you want fewer deaths.

Which one is lower?

I don't know what faulty assumptions Austin is talking about.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

It's not innate immunity. It's about people like me, who work from home and pretty much only go to the grocery store, who aren't really part of the potentially infected pool.

They're saying that traditional herd immunity assumes people go about their business. But this is the first pandemic where people are seriously isolating in significant numbers - which is effectively like taking us out of the equation.

The T cell immunity is gonna be innate where your antibodies are adaptive. We have some forms of memory T cells that are apparently cross reactive but it’s still early on that.

Yes though like your saying some have removed themselves from the equation, but with the majority of this spreading in homes and workplaces I don’t know if that number is significant yet.

And there’s some confusion woth herd immunity. For one it won’t be the same everywhere. New York will be different than podunk missouri towns for different reasons. Also just because it may be 20% of the population you can get massive overshot like we’ve seen in Italy and other hard hit areas. And finally just because you hit it doesn’t mean there won’t be outbreaks. It’s just that the effective population of potential infections is low enough it won’t spread crazy

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Donger

When they are available, yes, of course. Here's an example:

https://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/show...&postcount=183

Great. So, we can look at those manly numbers, right?

We have 137,000 dead already with mitigation efforts.

I've given you the herder death estimates, based ~50% infection rate, IFR and R0 = 990,000

You claim that you want fewer deaths.

Which one is lower?

Its not a fact we need 50% infection for herd immunity.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

So what you are saying is it may only hit 20% because people only interact with so many people in their life not because of built in immunity?

I guess that possible and I think an epidemiologist brought that up way back in March. That being said does it matter that much why it peaks at 20% as long as we know it does?

I don’t know. There seems to be something woth the 20% number though

[O.city]

The cruise ships and factories early were in hindsight signs that there’s some kind of immunity going on as everyone didn’t get it. That was our first sign

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Its not a fact we need 50% infection for herd immunity.

Epidemiologists have actually used higher than that, yes. I was being nice by using the lower number.

Which percentage would you like to use, and I'll re-work the death math.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Donger

Epidemiologists have actually used higher than that, yes. I was being nice by using the lower number.

Which percentage would you like to use, and I'll re-work the death math.

You cant accurately do that because you don't know what the actual infection rate is right now so you dont know the actual IFR. I'm not going to continue to argue "Donger's qualifiers".

The truth is you are arguing theory and opinion not fact. Period.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

You cant accurately do that because you don't know what the actual infection rate is right now so you dont know the actual IFR. I'm not going to continue to argue "Donger's qualifiers".

The truth is you are arguing theory and opinion not fact. Period.

We have CDC's best estimate of .6 IFR, yes. That's a fact.

So, what percentage would you like to use?

[O.city]

I'm gonna guess the IFR ends up around .25.

[suzzer99]

IFR is extremely population dependent. Older and more at-risk people are doing a much better job of isolating now than back in Feb/March. So it stands to reason it would be pretty low now and stay low.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Donger

We have CDC's best estimate of .6 IFR, yes. That's a fact.

So, what percentage would you like to use?

A best estimate is now a fact? you are a clown. I'm done, you just proved my point.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

IFR is extremely population dependent. Older and more at-risk people are doing a much better job of isolating now than back in Feb/March. So it stands to reason it would be pretty low now and stay low.

Its also very steadily dropping no matter how you look at it. Death are in no way staying aligned with new case numbers by %. And that is just the positives we KNOW about.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

A best estimate is now a fact? you are a clown. I'm done, you just proved my point.

I understand that you don't understand what facts are (as bizarre as that is), but yes, it's a fact that the CDC best estimate IFR is .65% And I'll prove it:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...scenarios.html