***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.”

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Talking about starting youth baseball practices here next month. I see the light.

All the asymptomatic Petri dish children running around sharing it and taking it home to their parents.

Wonderful idea!

[Kidd Lex]

Originally Posted by O.city

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....27.20081893v1

DaFace, here's the paper i read on the estimation of herd immunity etc.

The fact that people are creatures of habit could be our saving grace. The herd immunity need of 60-70% to stop the pandemic could easily be overstated. So many of us only truly have contact with the same <=12 people day after day after day. When 40% 50% of all people can no longer spread the virus will the pandemic burn out? The craziest mind **** is that if you just isolated every human for 3 weeks it’s gone (animal kingdom cases being the exception). Of course that’s impossible, but it’s just frustrating to know the virus can’t exist without its host, and yet it’s conquering the entire free world at the moment - need to put some thc oil in my nebulizer and really have an existential crisis.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Bowser

We're just not going to wait this thing out, and I have my doubts on some vaccine being available in 18-24 months. We need to open it up. It's going to hurt, but we need to push through it and get the country spinning again.

Are you OK with that if we end up with 1.5 million deaths? Not saying it'll happen, but it's well within the range of possibilities.

[Bowser]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Are you OK with that if we end up with 1.5 million deaths? Not saying it'll happen, but it's well within the range of possibilities.

What's the alternative? Far less deaths but a destitute country?

And at this point doesn't it just have the feeling that the can is getting kicked down the road? Can we see a point if we keep up like we are that people who are going to get it now if we open back up won't get it 6 months or a year down the road?

I don't want anyone to die from this stupid virus. But what will be the consequences if we wait too long in hopes of a cure that may or may not ever come?

[Kidd Lex]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Are you OK with that if we end up with 1.5 million deaths? Not saying it'll happen, but it's well within the range of possibilities.

Hell no. Limited reopening is the way forward, with the knowledge hot spots will go back on stricter lockdown if needed. Ramp up testing and accurate antibody tests, get reliable tests on Amazon and Wal-mart.com. Let people test at home. Yes it will have differing results, but capitalism and consumer reviews will bear out the best products. Give people the power to know what the hell is going on with their health. You either go full lock down, or empower people with knowledge and guidance.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by O.city

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....27.20081893v1

DaFace, here's the paper i read on the estimation of herd immunity etc.

If I'm reading that correctly, that's more like "herd slowing" than "herd immunity," right? Obviously even that would be a huge win, but it's not like we could go to sporting events normally again if the theory is that it's slowed because people don't go outside their circles much.

Even then, I still just worry that in our "best case" city they're only looking at 20-30% right now, while the more rural areas of NYC are still generally < 5%. Even if you assume that you only need to hit 5%, that still means that most rural areas are going to see their deaths climb by at least 6x (and likely more) before things start to really slow down.

It's just hard for me to see a scenario where we open things up to anything resembling normal without expecting the death toll to climb to 250-500k by the time it winds down.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Are you OK with that if we end up with 1.5 million deaths? Not saying it'll happen, but it's well within the range of possibilities.

Okay I am just going to throw out the cold, harsh side of it for argument sake and nothing more.

1.5 mil is .4% of our population. From strictly a numbers perspective it's insignificant. Unless you are part of the .4% anyway.....

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Bowser

What's the alternative? Far less deaths but a destitute country?

And at this point doesn't it just have the feeling that the can is getting kicked down the road? Can we see a point if we keep up like we are that people who are going to get it now if we open back up won't get it 6 months or a year down the road?

I don't want anyone to die from this stupid virus. But what will be the consequences if we wait too long in hopes of a cure that may or may not ever come?

There certainly aren't any easy answers. I'm, personally, a lot more optimistic that we'll have a vaccine far earlier than 18-24 months, but it's certainly not guaranteed.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Monticore

antibody testing?

Yeah. I translated the article from Dutch so the reading was not easy.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DaFace

There certainly aren't any easy answers. I'm, personally, a lot more optimistic that we'll have a vaccine far earlier than 18-24 months, but it's certainly not guaranteed.

I'm guessing by September for frontline workers and the hardest hit areas.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Okay I am just going to throw out the cold, harsh side of it for argument sake and nothing more.

1.5 mil is .4% of our population. From strictly a numbers perspective it's insignificant. Unless you are part of the .4% anyway.....

It's easy to say that when you don't know anyone who's been hit and such.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Okay I am just going to throw out the cold, harsh side of it for argument sake and nothing more.

1.5 mil is .4% of our population. From strictly a numbers perspective it's insignificant. Unless you are part of the .4% anyway.....

Frankly, I wish more people would just get over it and argue in those terms. It's the "lives are priceless" BS that I don't really think is productive.

While it's harsh, those are the kinds of decisions we're really talking about here, and I wish we could just be more clear about it.

For the record, I personally don't think I'm willing to throw up my hands and accept that level of death, but I don't think you're a bad person for suggesting that it wouldn't be the end of the world.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DaFace

If I'm reading that correctly, that's more like "herd slowing" than "herd immunity," right? Obviously even that would be a huge win, but it's not like we could go to sporting events normally again if the theory is that it's slowed because people don't go outside their circles much.

Even then, I still just worry that in our "best case" city they're only looking at 20-30% right now, while the more rural areas of NYC are still generally < 5%. Even if you assume that you only need to hit 5%, that still means that most rural areas are going to see their deaths climb by at least 6x (and likely more) before things start to really slow down.

It's just hard for me to see a scenario where we open things up to anything resembling normal without expecting the death toll to climb to 250-500k by the time it winds down.

Oh, I'm not saying where we'll be death wise. But as this paper said, it woudl significantly slow the spread and accompanied with common sense stuff maybe it woudl be enough.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by O.city

It's easy to say that when you don't know anyone who's been hit and such.

Thus my last sentence.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Frankly, I wish more people would just get over it and argue in those terms. It's the "lives are priceless" BS that I don't really think is productive.

While it's harsh, those are the kinds of decisions we're really talking about here, and I wish we could just be more clear about it.

For the record, I personally don't think I'm willing to throw up my hands and accept that level of death, but I don't think you're a bad person for suggesting that it wouldn't be the end of the world.

We build these decisions in on everything and what we're willing to do (spend) shows it. We could greatly reduce say, cancer and cancer deaths by pouring more money into research and care. But we don't because we've determined an acceptable amount of death from it at a certain price point.

It's hard discussions. I had a bioethics class in my last semester of college that was all about this type of stuff. It was kind of eye opening.