***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.”

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

After going on a rant about elitism, it's a bit hypocritical of me to go here but I simply can't think of any other way to say it.

Responsible people, on both sides of the political aisle, are wearing masks here by and large. I hear very, very little "individual liberty" arguments. People grumble about it but they're still wearing masks at the end of the day.

We have a certain segment of rural/small town people though, and I'm sure Missouri and other places are no different, and you know who they are - they show up to Walmart in their Grinch pajama bottoms in the middle of July, smoking a cigarette as they walk through the door, and looking (and smelling) like they haven't slept or showered in days.

Those are the people that don't wear masks and no amount of messaging is going to cure it. They don't care. They care about scoring and making kids. That's about it.

Heh. I know some of those people. I grew up with them.

We have the same types of folks in the city, but I think rural areas have higher proportions just due to the lower cost of living.

[prhom]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

It's people that don't fear a virus.

That’s a really interesting way of framing it and where we have such a hard time drawing the line between personal freedom and public health. Some people are not afraid of drunk driving either, and many people do it a lot without ever getting caught or having an accident. However, the bigger risk is to others who may be impacted by that choice, therefore we have laws against it. Should we allow drunk driving because it’s a personal choice whether you are afraid you will die or be injured while doing it?

[tyecopeland]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Well, that's no good.

I routinely work with public health officials and they're doing their jobs. It's bizarre to me that people won't listen to their recommendations.





It's probably different in different areas. My wife is from Iowa and I have a different perception of rural Iowa than rural Missouri. (Of course, she's from Iowa City which is not exactly rural nor typical of Iowa, so I've got imperfect information.)

I actually know the person whose Facebook post is quoted in the article that I linked. She's a nice person and is thoughtful, so I was surprised at her stance. But I see a lot of posts from my hometown friends in Missouri that are far more dogmatic than thoughtful, and it's pretty disappointing to see. I think you're right in that they don't fear a virus, but I more often hear "can't make me" arguments than health arguments from them. I'm charitably trying to conclude that it's just because the virus didn't hit their communities in force when the protective measures were being proposed, in which case they didn't see the need.

It's definitely some of that. When my area got shut down in the spring we had 10 cases cumulative in the county (again rural). There just wasn't the need for schools and businesses to be shut down then so people haven't gotten over that thought process yet.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by prhom

That’s a really interesting way of framing it and where we have such a hard time drawing the line between personal freedom and public health. Some people are not afraid of drunk driving either, and many people do it a lot without ever getting caught or having an accident. However, the bigger risk is to others who may be impacted by that choice, therefore we have laws against it. Should we allow drunk driving because it’s a personal choice whether you are afraid you will die or be injured while doing it?

I'm gonna go Donger on here and point out the driving analogies are irrelevant. Driving is not a right, it is a privilege.

[Deberg_1990]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

After going on a rant about elitism, it's a bit hypocritical of me to go here but I simply can't think of any other way to say it.

Responsible people, on both sides of the political aisle, are wearing masks here by and large. I hear very, very little "individual liberty" arguments. People grumble about it but they're still wearing masks at the end of the day.

We have a certain segment of rural/small town people though, and I'm sure Missouri and other places are no different, and you know who they are - they show up to Walmart in their Grinch pajama bottoms in the middle of July, smoking a cigarette as they walk through the door, and looking (and smelling) like they haven't slept or showered in days.

Those are the people that don't wear masks and no amount of messaging is going to cure it. They don't care. They care about scoring and making kids. That's about it.

Plenty of people like this unfortunately

Anti-masker in Tucson, AZ throws a tantrum and has to be carried out by his own son pic.twitter.com/ggo4I968aL

— Fifty Shades of Whey (@davenewworld_2) August 11, 2020

[Skyy God]

It’s people that doesn’t fear the virus because they consume lies and propaganda.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Well, that's no good.

I routinely work with public health officials and they're doing their jobs. It's bizarre to me that people won't listen to their recommendations.





It's probably different in different areas. My wife is from Iowa and I have a different perception of rural Iowa than rural Missouri. (Of course, she's from Iowa City which is not exactly rural nor typical of Iowa, so I've got imperfect information.)

I actually know the person whose Facebook post is quoted in the article that I linked. She's a nice person and is thoughtful, so I was surprised at her stance. But I see a lot of posts from my hometown friends in Missouri that are far more dogmatic than thoughtful, and it's pretty disappointing to see. I think you're right in that they don't fear a virus, but I more often hear "can't make me" arguments than health arguments from them. I'm charitably trying to conclude that it's just because the virus didn't hit their communities in force when the protective measures were being proposed, in which case they didn't see the need.

I live in a small town 6k with smaller towns around , not sure if considered rural or not but there are plenty of people who go see my wife for help and just completely disregard her advice , but will take the medical advice of one of their coffee buddies , I can’t figure out . They smoke or do drugs but they don’t like. Vaccines or or pills and would rather try reflexology to cure their cancer than chemo.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by htismaqe

After going on a rant about elitism, it's a bit hypocritical of me to go here but I simply can't think of any other way to say it.

Responsible people, on both sides of the political aisle, are wearing masks here by and large. I hear very, very little "individual liberty" arguments. People grumble about it but they're still wearing masks at the end of the day.

We have a certain segment of rural/small town people though, and I'm sure Missouri and other places are no different, and you know who they are - they show up to Walmart in their Grinch pajama bottoms in the middle of July, smoking a cigarette as they walk through the door, and looking (and smelling) like they haven't slept or showered in days.

Those are the people that don't wear masks and no amount of messaging is going to cure it. They don't care. They care about scoring and making kids. That's about it.

That's pretty elitist of you to assume that urban areas don't have smelly people who walk into Walmart in their Grinch pajama bottoms smoking cigarettes.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Dan Price
@DanPriceSeattle
My company processes payments for 20,000 small businesses

In the first lockdown, their revenue fell 55%. They got 8 weeks of PPP loans for a 36-week pandemic. Those that survived are hanging on by a thread.

Another lockdown without aid will wipe small biz off the map completely

The Agenda calls for this specifically.

Try to keep up.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Cave Johnson

It’s people that doesn’t fear the virus because they consume lies and propaganda.

Or maybe a more logical reason is they are low risk?

[tyecopeland]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Do I get an apology too for you accusing me of promoting "geo class warfare" and being "elitist" by posting a damn chart?

I apologize for calling you dart

[Skyy God]

Had an intake recently show up to my office with a political hat (strike 1) and no worn mask (strike 2). He tried to tell me it was ok because he didn’t have the Rona.

Uh, that’s not how it works, buddy.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by DaFace

That's pretty elitist of you to assume that urban areas don't have smelly people who walk into Walmart in their Grinch pajama bottoms smoking cigarettes.

Do they ingest meth like most people drink water?

[Skyy God]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Or maybe a more logical reason is they are low risk?

Nonsense.

Rural Americans have far more comorbidites than urbanites.

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2...eath-risk.html

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by prhom

That’s a really interesting way of framing it and where we have such a hard time drawing the line between personal freedom and public health. Some people are not afraid of drunk driving either, and many people do it a lot without ever getting caught or having an accident. However, the bigger risk is to others who may be impacted by that choice, therefore we have laws against it. Should we allow drunk driving because it’s a personal choice whether you are afraid you will die or be injured while doing it?

There aren't currently any laws regarding failure to wear a mask so it's not really a valid comparison.

That being said, let me be clear - it's not only that they don't fear the virus, they don't fear death. They don't fear anything. They're so focused on themselves (and usually their next fix) that nothing else matters.