***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.”

[Pants]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

That story is just exaggerated BS to make it sound more dramatic. Wait time is not 7-14 days on average that's a complete outlier.

Kansas is slow as hell because as I have been told, they have a single lab in Wichita doing all the state testing rather than farming it out to private companies.

Missouri is extremely quick on the other hand.

I don't think this is accurate.

I have had 5 people very close to me get tested and the results were back in under 36 hours. All in KS.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

That story is just exaggerated BS to make it sound more dramatic. Wait time is not 7-14 days on average that's a complete outlier.

Kansas is slow as hell because as I have been told, they have a single lab in Wichita doing all the state testing rather than farming it out to private companies.

Missouri is extremely quick on the other hand.

Anecdotal, but I know the hospital/clinic in my town has 7-10 day TAT and I have a buddy who is a pharmacist up around KC at a CVS and he said the TAT are around 10 days. This was about a month ago though, so idk if that's still accurate.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

That story is just exaggerated BS to make it sound more dramatic. Wait time is not 7-14 days on average that's a complete outlier.

Kansas is slow as hell because as I have been told, they have a single lab in Wichita doing all the state testing rather than farming it out to private companies.

Missouri is extremely quick on the other hand.

The company I work for here in MO does covid testing and we are getting around 7 days wait times for results from Quest Labs. A few weeks ago it was almost 2 weeks for some.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Pants

I don't think this is accurate.

I have had 5 people very close to me get tested and the results were back in under 36 hours. All in KS.

I should have clarified, it depends on who does the test, if you go to a state/county health department run test site its slow as hell.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by dirk digler

The company I work for here in MO does covid testing and we are getting around 7 days wait times for results from Quest Labs. A few weeks ago it was almost 2 weeks for some.

Interesting, we (our company in Missouri) aren't using Quest we try to run everyone through the local Occumed and get 24-48 hour turn around.

Freeman health systems and Mercy locally both have quick turn around.

You get county involved in its all over the board. But we have definitely seen an issue with employees who get tested in Kansas at local heath facilities.

One of our frustrations has been the very willy nilly choosing of test sights when people use virtual visits or their personal physician.

[petegz28]

MN Governor Quietly Reverses Course on Hydroxychloroquine

I carved out any political references however I am sure Stummpy will say these are more Witchdoctors and their credentials came out of a cereal box ....

In recent weeks a chorus of voices in the medical community has emerged to challenge the view that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective as a COVID treatment. Dr. Harvey A. Risch, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, said a full analysis of the literature suggests hydroxychloroquine may be the key to defeating the coronavirus.

“Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic,” Risch wrote in Newsweek, adding that a full review of the COVID literature on the drug shows “clear-cut and significant benefits.”

Prescribing hydroxychloroquine in the early stages of the virus is key, Risch said, and others agree. Steven Hatfill, a veteran virologist and adjunct assistant professor at the George Washington University Medical Center, says the literature supporting hydroxychloroquine is overwhelming.

“There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections,” Hatfill wrote in RealClearPolitics. “There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect.”

One of the positive studies, published by Henry Ford Health System, was a large-scale retrospective of six hospitals. Analyzing 2,541 patients, it found that those treated with hydroxychloroquine alone died at about half the rate of patients not treated with it.

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...e__143978.html

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by petegz28

MN Governor Quietly Reverses Course on Hydroxychloroquine

I carved out any political references however I am sure Stummpy will say these are more Witchdoctors and their credentials came out of a cereal box ....



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...e__143978.html

Its almost like this isn't settled science like some people have said all along.

[Bill Brasky]

I have an acquaintance that died from c-19 recently in KS. 36 male and physically fit. Keep those masks up pals.

edit: KN-95 masks are readily available on Amazon. I wore one on a work trip to a Nevada hospital, which had a covid-19 ward, and thankfully didn't get sick. This is anecdotal of course, but it's a pretty high likelihood I was exposed at some point.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Its almost like this isn't settled science like some people have said all along.

Yeah well, people, things and reasons......and some stuff

[KCUnited]

Recently published CDC study on the mental health challenges attributed to Covid

Mental Health, Substance Use, and Suicidal Ideation During the COVID-19
Pandemic — United States, June 24–30, 2020

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/...mm6932a1-H.pdf

Summary

What is already known about this topic?

Communities have faced mental health challenges related to
COVID-19–associated morbidity, mortality, and mitigation activities.

What is added by this report?

During June 24–30, 2020, U.S. adults reported considerably
elevated adverse mental health conditions associated with
COVID-19. Younger adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential
workers, and unpaid adult caregivers reported having experienced disproportionately worse mental health outcomes,
increased substance use, and elevated suicidal ideation.

What are the implications for public health practice?

The public health response to the COVID-19 pandemic should
increase intervention and prevention efforts to address
associated mental health conditions. Community-level efforts,
including health communication strategies, should prioritize
young adults, racial/ethnic minorities, essential workers, and
unpaid adult caregivers.

[Fish]

Statement from Yale Faculty on Hydroxychloroquine and its Use in COVID-19

We write with grave concern that too many are being distracted by the ardent advocacy of our Yale colleague, Dr. Harvey Risch, to promote the assertion that hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) when given with antibiotics is effective in treating COVID-19, in particular as an early therapeutic intervention for the disease. As his colleagues, we defend the right of Dr. Risch, a respected cancer epidemiologist, to voice his opinions. But he is not an expert in infectious disease epidemiology and he has not been swayed by the body of scientific evidence from rigorously conducted clinical trials, which refute the plausibility of his belief and arguments. Over the last few weeks, all of us have spent considerable time explaining the evidence behind HCQ research, as it applies to early and late stage COVID-19 patients to the scientific community and general public, and now are compelled to detail the evidence in this open letter.

Spoiler!

We are seriously alarmed for the safety of patients and the coherence and effectiveness of our national COVID-19 emergency response when misinformation about HCQ is spread and when rigorous scientific evidence and consensus produced by the community of expert researchers in infectious diseases, federal agencies and national and global health organizations are not heeded. Let us be clear: we are unanimous in our desire to see the development of therapies to treat COVID-19 and to prevent the transmission or acquisition of SARS-CoV-2. If HCQ was shown to be effective, even among subgroups of patients with COVID-19 in ongoing high quality trials, we would join our colleagues in promoting access to it for all who need it. However, the evidence thus far has been unambiguous in refuting the premise that HCQ is a potentially effective early therapy for COVID-19.

HCQ is used for the treatment of rheumatological diseases, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. However, this does not ensure that the drug will be safe in patients with COVID-19 or in widespread use to treat early illness. In fact, rigorously-conducted clinical trials have found that HCQ is not effective as an early prophylactic therapy in preventing illness due to COVID-19 in people exposed to the virus. Furthermore, HCQ, alone or together with the antibiotic, azithromycin, has not been shown to be effective in improving the clinical status of patients with COVID-19. Moreover, clinical trials have found that treatment with HCQ may be associated with increased risk of adverse reactions. Taken together, the scientific evidence does not support the widespread use of this drug, alone or in combination with an antibiotic, as advocated by Dr. Risch and others, unless rigorous evidence from clinical trials demonstrates otherwise.

Finally, we point to the recent memorandum from the US Food and Drug Administration revoking the Emergency Use Authorization for HCQ that has assembled the data on the drug as of June 2020 (Food and Drug Administration Memorandum Explaining Basis for Revocation of Emergency Use Authorization for Emergency Use of Chloroquine Phosphate and Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate). The Infectious Diseases Society of America now advises against the drug alone or in combination with azithromycin in the setting of COVID-19 except in the context of ongoing clinical studies. If these trials do show a clinical benefit for HCQ, we would revise our views on its use in the management of COVID-19.

The disproportionate focus on treatment with HCQ, in addition to the lack of a strong scientific rationale for its use and the risk of its potentially harmful effects, has major opportunity costs. In a recent analysis of COVID-19 clinical trials, one in every six studies of treatments against SARSCoV-2 was designed to study HCQ or chloroquine. We understand the desperation of many to see an effective treatment for COVID-19 emerge that will stop the pandemic in its tracks or slow its relentless spread in the US. But investing our resources in HCQ after multiple studies have not shown it to be effective for COVID-19 has serious implications for more than just individual patients. The continuing advocacy on behalf of HCQ distracts us from advancing the science on COVID-19 and seeking more effective interventions in a time when more than 1000 people are dying per day of this disease. There are multiple approaches to expedite the evaluation and approval of drugs for serious and life-threatening diseases in the US that have existed for decades now, but they all still rely on data from rigorous, well-conducted clinical trials to guide us. In addition, this ongoing promotion of HCQ has global implications as well, as many countries in the global South only have access to HCQ and use of HCQ is still common in this setting despite the lack of evidence and potential risks.

It is critical that we follow the science and where the evidence leads us on a quest to treat and prevent COVID-19. In this climate, it’s important to rely on the data above all else when making clinical or regulatory decisions. Making these kinds of choices guided by personal endorsements outside of the context of the existing scientific evidence is medicine by testimonial and risks people’s lives. Randomized controlled trials are how we keep from fooling ourselves, test our assumptions about new drugs and new uses for old ones. For instance, flecainide was initially proposed as a drug to treat those at risk of severe arrhythmias after sudden myocardial infarction. However, the Cardiac Arrhythmia Suppression Trial showed for the first time that mortality was actually three times higher among persons receiving the drug for this purpose. Even though the drug was known to be effective in those experiencing severe arrhythmia, it ended up increasing mortality in those simply at risk. And no one noticed because sudden death after myocardial infarction was not a rare event and this tripling of the risk was not detected until a randomized, controlled trial was done. The FDA has rescinded the EUA for HCQ for a reason: the vast preponderance of the evidence suggests that the drug is without merit in clinical care for COVID-19 and presents real dangers to patients by its continued use.

In 1987, University of California at Berkeley Professor Peter Duesberg gained notoriety by expounding on his belief that AIDS was not caused by the human immunodeficiency virus, but by antiretroviral agents like azidothymidine (AZT) and recreational drugs. However, the data on antiretroviral therapy was clear: these drugs extended life and health and turned around the course of the AIDS epidemic worldwide. But Professor Duesberg persisted in his quest. Professor Duesberg’s thesis dissuaded many from taking antiretroviral therapy, and after the President of South Africa Thabo Mbeki endorsed these views, it led to delays in the roll-out of these life-saving drugs costing hundreds of thousands of lives in that country. While minority opinions, anecdotal evidence, novel interpretations and challenges to orthodoxies in a field can be important, at some point, the application of the scientific method generating evidence from multiple, well-designed clinical trials and observational studies does matter and should be heard over the noise of conspiracy theories, purported hoaxes, and the views of zealots.

Signed,
Jason Abaluck, PhD
Associate Professor of Economics
Yale School of Management
Amy Bei, PhD
Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Yale School of Public Health
Theodore Cohen, MD, DPH
Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Co-director, Public Health Modeling Concentration
Yale School of Public Health
Gary V. Desir, MD
Paul B. Beeson Professor of Medicine
Vice Provost, Faculty Development and Diversity
Chair, Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine
Chief, Internal Medicine, Yale New Haven Hospital
Gail D’Onofrio MD
Professor & Chair, Emergency Medicine
Yale School of Medicine
Yale School of Public Health
Howard P. Forman, MD, MBA
Professor of Radiology & Public Health (Health Policy)
Yale School of Public Health
Yale School of Medicine
Professor in the Practice of Management
Yale School of Management
Alison Galvani, PhD
Burnett and Stender Families Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Director of the Center for Infectious Disease Modeling and Analysis (CIDMA)
Yale School of Public Health
Gregg Gonsalves, PhD
Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Yale School of Public Health
Associate Professor (Adjunct) and Research Scholar
Yale Law School
Nathan D. Grubaugh, PhD
Assistant Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Yale School of Public Health
Roberta Hines, MD
Nicholas M. Greene Professor & Chair of Anesthesiology
Yale School of Medicine
Valerie Horsley, PhD
Associate Professor of Molecular, Cellular & Developmental Biology
Yale University
Akiko Iwasaki, PhD
Waldemar Von Zedtwitz Professor of Immunobiology and Molecular, Cellular and Developmental Biology
Yale School of Medicine
Professor of Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology
Yale University
Amy Kapczynski, JD
Professor of Law
Yale Law School
Trace Kershaw, PhD
Department Chair and Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of Public Health (Social and Behavioral Sciences)
Yale School of Public Health
Albert I. Ko, MD
Professor of Epidemiology and Medicine and Chair of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases
Yale School of Public Health
Stephen R. Latham, JD, PhD
Director, Interdisciplinary Center for Bioethics
Yale University
Brett Lindenbach, PhD
Associate Professor, Microbial Pathogenesis
Yale School of Medicine
Fiona Scott Morton, PhD
Theodore Nierenberg Professor of Economics
Yale School of Management
Ruslan Medzhitov, PhD
Sterling Professor of Immunobiology
Yale School of Medicine
Saad B. Omer, MBBS MPH PhD FIDSA
Professor of Medicine (Infectious Diseases),Yale School of Medicine
Adjunct Professor, Yale School of Nursing
Susan Dwight Bliss Professor of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health
A. David Paltiel, PhD
Professor of Health Policy & Management
Yale School of Public Health
Yale School of Management
Sunil Parikh, MD, MPH
Associate Professor of Epidemiology and Medicine
Yale School of Public Health
Yale School of Medicine
Karen Santucci, MD
Professor & Chief, Pediatric Emergency Medicine
Yale School of Medicine
Marcella Nunez Smith, MD, MHS
Associate Professor, General Internal Medicine, Public Health, and Management
Yale School of Medicine
Yale School of Public Health
Yale School of Management
Director, Equity Research and Innovation Center
Daniel Weinberger, PhD
Associate Professor of Epidemiology (Microbial Diseases)
Yale School of Public Health

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Its almost like this isn't settled science like some people have said all along.

You choose to listen to the unsupported opinion of one outlier, who's been publicly called out by his colleagues. No mystery as to why.

[Donger]

"From a public health standpoint, at first, hydroxychloroquine looked very promising. There were not the definitive studies. At this point in time, there's been five randomized control, placebo-controlled trials that do not show any benefit to hydroxychloroquine. So at this point in time, we don't recommend that as a treatment," Assistant Secretary for Health at the Department of Health and Human Services Admiral Brett Giroir.

"The evidence just doesn't show that hydroxychloroquine is effective right now. I think we need to move on from that and talk about what is effective," the doctor explained, pointing out that mask wearing has been shown to effectively curb the spread of new infections.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by petegz28

MN Governor Quietly Reverses Course on Hydroxychloroquine

I carved out any political references however I am sure Stummpy will say these are more Witchdoctors and their credentials came out of a cereal box ....



https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...e__143978.html

Went down the rabbit hole with this one. This Dr. Ritsch is the the kind of person that is needed to be a driving force behind hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin/zinc mixture to treat COVID19. The guy that wrote this article however is a looney toon biased idiot.

Im not sure why there is such a very small minority of people that are calling for the hydroxy/azit/zinc mixture. Because this Dr. Risch is about the only person that isnt some nut that says this mixture is safe and extremely effective.

[O.city]

It works great in a test tube. Alot of the best "results" have come from early treatment of mild symptomatic patients. The problem with it is you don't know if they got better from the treatment or just the natural course of the thing.

Tough stuff.