***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.”

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I have 10 people who are sick with a common cold. I give them a drug. They all live. How confident are you that it was my drug that kept them alive?

I have 10 people who are sick with a common cold. I give them a drug. Two of them die. How confident are you that it was my drug that killed them?

The probabilities are stretched to make the point, but that's what we're talking about here.

Except the Brazilian trial was using higher doses and the trials being conducted here are not.

Let's have two trials that are similar before we rule that one means the other doesn't work.

For example:
If you take 2 tylenol your headache might go away.

If you take half the bottle you will be going to the ER.

Does that mean tylenol doesn't work?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Except the Brazilian trial was using higher doses and the trials being conducted here are not.

Let's have two trials that are similar before we rule that one means the other doesn't work.

For example:
If you take 2 tylenol your headache might go away.

If you take half the bottle you will be going to the ER.

Does that mean tylenol doesn't work?

No, but that's not what the article said. It said they halted the trial and that more research was needed.

Also, a more accurate analogy would be taking 2.5 tylenol instead of 2.

[Titty Meat]

Originally Posted by TLO

Woah woah woah.... If anecdotal positive instances don't count, a study of 81 Brazilian people who were being given higher than recommend doses had to be called off shouldn't count either.

Its becoming increasingly clear it's not some sort of miracle drug that was being sold as such in this very thread.

[petegz28]

looks like today's numbers are going to be close to those of yesterday.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Titty Meat

Its becoming increasingly clear it's not some sort of miracle drug that was being sold as such in this very thread.

We agree here. It's definitely not a "game changer."

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by TLO

We agree here. It's definitely not a "game changer."

Eh, I don't necessarily agree with that either. To Pete's point, much of clinical trials aren't focused on "does it work" so much as they're focused on understanding "what dosages, timings, and combinations of drugs work."

Also, side effects aren't necessarily a deal breaker. Obviously death isn't ideal, but if it causes fatal side effects in 1 in 1000 people but saves 10 in 1000 people, it might still be better than nothing. (Clearly just making up numbers here.)

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

No, but that's not what the article said. It said they halted the trial and that more research was needed.

Also, a more accurate analogy would be taking 2.5 tylenol instead of 2.

What is the dosage we are using in our trials?

I am curious because that article seemed to be more of a hit piece than anything but I won't get into that here

[loochy]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I have 10 people who are sick with a common cold. I give them a drug. They all live. How confident are you that it was my drug that kept them alive?

I have 10 people who are sick with a common cold. I give them a drug. Two of them die. How confident are you that it was my drug that killed them?

The probabilities are stretched compared to COVID to make the point, but that's what we're talking about here.

HOW DARE YOU COMPARE THIS TO A COLD, DAFACE

HOW DARE YOU

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

What is the dosage we are using in our trials?

I am curious because that article seemed to be more of a hit piece than anything but I won't get into that here

Dunno. Given that there's no standard practice, I doubt it's very consistent. That's what clinical trials are for.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Dunno. Given that there's no standard practice, I doubt it's very consistent. That's what clinical trials are for.

500. The dose is 500.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by petegz28

What is the dosage we are using in our trials?

I am curious because that article seemed to be more of a hit piece than anything but I won't get into that here

500mg bid I believe. Then they taper it down to 500mg one daily. (I think I'm remembering that right)

I do know there is a very fine line between what is considered a theraputic dose, and a dose that causes a greater deal of side effects and even overdose.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Eh, I don't necessarily agree with that either. To Pete's point, much of clinical trials aren't focused on "does it work" so much as they're focused on understanding "what dosages, timings, and combinations of drugs work."

Also, side effects aren't necessarily a deal breaker. Obviously death isn't ideal, but if it causes fatal side effects in 1 in 1000 people but saves 10 in 1000 people, it might still be better than nothing. (Clearly just making up numbers here.)

Sure, I get that. We'll have to see what the clinical trials show.

[TLO]

Holy shit... did anyone see that chart Dr. Birx just showed?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by TLO

Holy shit... did anyone see that chart Dr. Birx just showed?

No, was it purdy?

[TLO]

Originally Posted by petegz28

No, was it purdy?

She showed a couple of them.

One that showed NJ/NY going off like a rocket compared to the rest of the country. We all know it's happening, but it's crazy to see it in graph form like that.

Another that showed other metropolitan "outbreaks". St. Louis was on that chart, though I couldn't tell where because all the colors are far too similar.