***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.”

[kgrund]

Originally Posted by Donger

Well, what's your pick? Maybe just one?

My response was YOU pick. If you want me to break it down for you, I will tell you that they have missed significantly of number of cases, required hospitalizations, required ICU beds, and number of need ventilators. They have been closer on deaths, but that is without question the best data input into the model we likely have. I do not need to go further into what has been well documented as to how off the models have been, so why do you acting like you do not follow the news?

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by SAUTO

And I’d seen this . Billay doesn’t know the difference between extend and expand...

Hey **** off I couldnt think of the word while I was more focused on eating this delicious Westport Fleamarketburger (everything is 50% until 6)

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by kgrund

My response was YOU pick. If you want me to break it down for you, I will tell you that they have missed significantly of number of cases, required hospitalizations, required ICU beds, and number of need ventilators. They have been closer on deaths, but that is without question the best data input into the model we likely have. I do not need to go further into what has been well documented as to how off the models have been, so why do you acting like you do not follow the news?

I agree with you that the model needs to be taken with a grain of salt. I don't agree that it's useless, though. I think people like to think of models as being a linear process (inputs, model, outputs, done). Instead, it's a continuous process (inputs, model, outputs, adjustment, inputs, model, outputs, adjustment).

I wish as much as anyone that they were more accurate. I just don't have an issue with it when they're not.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by kgrund

My response was YOU pick. If you want me to break it down for you, I will tell you that they have missed significantly of number of cases, required hospitalizations, required ICU beds, and number of need ventilators. They have been closer on deaths, but that is without question the best data input into the model we likely have. I do not need to go further into what has been well documented as to how off the models have been, so why do you acting like you do not follow the news?

I've not seen projected number of cases from any of the models, but perhaps there were. Nor have I seen missed estimates on hospitalizations, ICU bed or vents.

We do have their estimates on deaths, without mitigation and with, and the latter has been revised based on participation on the mitigation efforts.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

I'm wondering if Kansas will as a whole. I believe it expires this Sunday.

I would think so. KC is talking about extending into May. The 6 KC area counties all locked down well before the entire state of Ks did so I think she will most likely roll with whatever Johnson\Wyandotte County does to be honest

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Donger

Have you read their explanation regarding uncertainty?

Yes I have.

My frustration comes from the model seemingly having a much higher degree of confidence, ( in Missouri/Kansas) in particular, and then deciding on this run that they really aren't all that certain at all. (The shaded area of possibility has grown A LOT)

It's that way for multiple other states too.

I guess I'd like to know what exactly changed to make the model more uncertain.

[Titty Meat]

https://www.kshb.com/news/coronaviru...s-across-state

"Kansas Department of Health and Environment Secretary Dr. Lee Norman said during a press conference on Monday that an outbreak tied to a March conference at a Kansas City, Kansas, church also has resulted in four deaths. It’s one of five outbreaks related to religious gatherings in the state, Norman said."

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Donger

I've not seen projected number of cases from any of the models, but perhaps there were. Nor have I seen missed estimates on hospitalizations, ICU bed or vents.

We do have their estimates on deaths, without mitigation and with, and the latter has been revised based on participation on the mitigation efforts.

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america

Thanks, and how far off have the dotted lines been?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Donger

Thanks, and how far off have the dotted lines been?

You asked for the data I provided a link, do what you want with it instead of asking questions.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Donger

Thanks, and how far off have the dotted lines been?

That's a legit gripe I have about their site - they don't publish anything on past performance. Every time they revise everything, the old stuff disappears.

So the answer is, it's tough to say for sure (though you could dig and compare in individual areas).

In Colorado, I recall an earlier model showing that we'd need over 10k hospital beds with a capacity of 5k, and now it's showing a need for more like 500.

So I get it - this is the only model that's being made public, and it's fluctuated tremendously.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by TLO

Yes I have.

My frustration comes from the model seemingly having a much higher degree of confidence, ( in Missouri/Kansas) in particular, and then deciding on this run that they really aren't all that certain at all. (The shaded area of possibility has grown A LOT)

It's that way for multiple other states too.

I guess I'd like to know what exactly changed to make the model more uncertain.

When you see experts predicting the chargers to win the AFC west every year , those experts sound really certain until they are not.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by DaFace

That's a legit gripe I have about their site - they don't publish anything on past performance. Every time they revise everything, the old stuff disappears.

So the answer is, it's tough to say for sure (though you could dig and compare in individual areas).

In Colorado, I recall an earlier model showing that we'd need over 10k hospital beds with a capacity of 5k, and now it's showing a need for more like 500.

So I get it - this is the only model that's being made public, and it's fluctuated tremendously.

I agree that's a legitimate gripe.

[Donger]

An influential coronavirus model cited by the White House said that today is the peak day for daily deaths in the United States.

About 2,150 Covid-19 deaths are projected for today and deaths are expected to decline moving forward, according to model from the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation at the University of Washington.

A total of 68,841 people are now expected to die in the US by August, which is up from Friday’s projection of 61,500 deaths.

The model predicts the pandemic will peter out in May, but experts have questioned its assumption that there will be no resurgence of the virus in the summer months

According to the model, the US hit “peak resource use” three days ago, on Friday. The latest update of the model says the US faced a shortage of 7,369 intensive care beds on that date, but it’s unclear whether that occurred.

Hard-hit New York hit its peak number of deaths three days ago, according to the model, but hundreds of deaths are still expected daily for the coming weeks.

Some states are still expected to be weeks away from their peak numbers of deaths: Florida, for example, is expected to hit peak deaths on May 6, when 128 people are projected to die. Texas, for its part, is predicted to hit peak deaths on April 30, when 71 people are estimated to die.

The country’s largest state, California, is projected to hit peak deaths in six days, on April 19, when about 50 people are estimated to die.

[TLO]

I thought for a while you could go back and look at past projections, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Unless I'm not able to find it on my phone for whatever reason.

Anyway, we're at +1,380 deaths today with a good portion of states reprin reporting.