***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.”

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

The vaccinated can carry and spread the virus.

at a reduced rate and if you are surrounded by other vaccinated people the spread can be reduced significantly hopefully to a point it never gets to higher risk demographic and even so if they are vaccinated the risk of severe illness and death is reduced . The vaccines work better if more people are vaccinated, any potential decrease in risk in one individual can become exponential as a whole.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Monticore

at a reduced rate and if you are surrounded by other vaccinated people the spread can be reduced significantly hopefully to a point it never gets to higher risk demographic and even so if they are vaccinated the risk of severe illness and death is reduced . The vaccines work better if more people are vaccinated, any potential decrease in risk in one individual can become exponential as a whole.

Reduced rate? Only data I have seen is the vaccinated viral load is just as high.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Reduced rate? Only data I have seen is the vaccinated viral load is just as high.

For not as long , reducing the window (last I saw , might have changed)and again if the people around you are vaccinated they are less likely to get infected .

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Reduced rate? Only data I have seen is the vaccinated viral load is just as high.

While it's true that conclusions are still fuzzy, it's very hard to believe that would be true. It's a respiratory disease, which is spread by droplets. Logically, you would think that the people who are more seriously ill (coughing and sneezing) are more likely to spread it.

But even if you assume that an infected person who is vaccinated is equally as likely as an infected person who is not, you have to keep in mind that the vaccines are ~90% effective at preventing infection in the first place. I think that part gets lost in the discussion a lot.

[Kiimo]

I went back a couple pages but didn't see this posted:

Unreal.

https://defector.com/fake-vaccine-ca...m-for-the-nfl/

There’s good reason to believe some number of NFL players have used fake vaccine cards, and teams’ protocols aren’t designed to catch them.

Fake CDC cards, often ordered online, are big business and growing, and two NFL agents who work for different agencies told Defector that players they represent asked them for help getting a fake vaccine card. (Both agents declined to do so.) One of those agents said that his client asked him about getting a fake card because a teammate of his had used one. “He was like, ‘Oh well my teammate’s got this fake card. Should I just do that?’” the agent said. “I’m like no! Just get vaccinated!”

This player was interested in getting a fake because he had just been placed on the COVID-19 reserve list for being a close contact. Two days after the conversation with his agent, the player got COVID himself.

Based on what that agent learned from his conversation with this player and others similarly shut down as close contacts in 2021, he estimates that 10–15 percent of players have a fake vaccine card. “I think it is a lot more common than people realize,” he said. “Look, you’re talking about the NFL. These guys do anything they can to fudge a weed test or a PED test.”

A third NFL agent told Defector that he hadn’t directly heard of any players using fakes but assumed it was probably happening. We spoke in the morning and that same night, the agent texted me back with an update: “Was told by a player tonight that a big-name guy on his team has a fake card.

I think the NFL was just asking for the paper version which is just laugh out loud funny. What? Everyone has a QR code. Just...require that. The NFL acting like a bouncer at an 18 and over bar glancing at IDs from Hawaii named McLovin or Muhammad is just hilarious.


This would explain the frequency of "breakthrough cases"

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Reduced rate? Only data I have seen is the vaccinated viral load is just as high.

Originally Posted by DaFace

While it's true that conclusions are still fuzzy, it's very hard to believe that would be true. It's a respiratory disease, which is spread by droplets. Logically, you would think that the people who are more seriously ill (coughing and sneezing) are more likely to spread it.

But even if you assume that an infected person who is vaccinated is equally as likely as an infected person who is not, you have to keep in mind that the vaccines are ~90% effective at preventing infection in the first place. I think that part gets lost in the discussion a lot.

Vaccinated, last I saw, did have a similar viral load to unvaxxed with Delta.

However, the period of time a person is contagious is shorter for the vaxxed, about half if I recall correctly.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by DaFace

While it's true that conclusions are still fuzzy, it's very hard to believe that would be true. It's a respiratory disease, which is spread by droplets. Logically, you would think that the people who are more seriously ill (coughing and sneezing) are more likely to spread it.

But even if you assume that an infected person who is vaccinated is equally as likely as an infected person who is not, you have to keep in mind that the vaccines are ~90% effective at preventing infection in the first place. I think that part gets lost in the discussion a lot.

Are they 90% at preventing infection with Delta? How long does that 90% immunity last? Last I heard was the US was not tracking break through infections other than hospitalization.

The data that is available from Israel doesn't seem to look very good. I think everybody can agree that the vaccine helps prevent serious illness.

But it is a giant leap to force people to get vaccinated claiming it is too prevent the spread of this virus.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Are they 90% at preventing infection with Delta? How long does that 90% immunity last? Last I heard was the US was not tracking break through infections other than hospitalization.

The data that is available from Israel doesn't seem to look very good. I think everybody can agree that the vaccine helps prevent serious illness.

But it is a giant leap to force people to get vaccinated claiming it is too prevent the spread of this virus.

Israel data is skewed by the older group, which had a high breakthrough infection rate. Younger group was still in that 90% range.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by lawrenceRaider

Israel data is skewed by the older group, which had a high breakthrough infection rate. Younger group was still in that 90% range.

So we should lock down old people to prevent the spread of the virus?

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

So we should lock down old people to prevent the spread of the virus?

Or just send infected patients back to nursing homes.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

So we should lock down old people to prevent the spread of the virus?

because the vaccine has proven to reduce severe illness and death in all age groups that might not be necessary if people get vaccinated.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Monticore

because the vaccine has proven to reduce severe illness and death in all age groups that might not be necessary if people get vaccinated.

Might not be necessary? Jesus how far are we going to go with this? For a illness with over a 99% survival rate before the vaccine.

If your high risk get the vaccine and protect yourself. This virus isn't going away no matter how many people get vaccinated in the US.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Might not be necessary? Jesus how far are we going to go with this? For a illness with over a 99% survival rate before the vaccine.

If your high risk get the vaccine and protect yourself. This virus isn't going away no matter how many people get vaccinated in the US.

I'll never understand why 99% survival rate is an argument for anything. If 1% of the country died, that would be around 3.5 million people. Or to frame it a little differently, if 1% of people in Arrowhead stadium died, that would be around 760 people. One percent is NOT A SMALL NUMBER.

I just don't understand how anyone can look at the ~700k deaths from this thing and think, "This is fine. Let's keep this up."

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'll never understand why 99% survival rate is an argument for anything. If 1% of the country died, that would be around 3.5 million people. Or to frame it a little differently, if 1% of people in Arrowhead stadium died, that would be around 760 people. One percent is NOT A SMALL NUMBER.

I just don't understand how anyone can look at the ~700k deaths from this thing and think, "This is fine. Let's keep this up."

It is the lack of comprehension of numbers on that scale.

[Katipan]

They do not care.

Frame it in prose all you want, but they do not care.
If it doesn't touch them, it's someone else's problem.

It's some of the most vile thought patterns ever used here and we used to call each other sacks of santorum.