***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.”

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by O.city

With the testing issues and the actualities of the virus, we don't even know who has this thing.

I just don't see unless testing is scaled to a massive level what good it really does. Until the positive tests compared to the tests we're doing gets down around 1%, we're catching like a fraction of the virus.

You're right. The scaling over the last three weeks has been a massive failure. I'm also highly skeptical of the initial reports on antibody tests. The information that came out from the Santa Clara study on antibodies claimed the test had 99.5% specificity, which is almost certainly horseshit.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DaFace

You've read more than I have - is the reliability of the serology tests an issue? I've seen some suggestions that some of the antibody tests are turning out to be junk, but I don't have a feel for how big of an issue it is.

Let's say that I want an antibody test to do a really good job of identifying potential carriers. If I make it extremely sensitive, it will flag a lot of different kinds of antibodies. The problem is that there are multiple different kinds of coronaviruses, and as the studies have not been subjected to peer review yet, it's difficult to determine how narrow these positive results are.

The second issue is that even if someone has antibodies for a virus, it does not necessarily mean they are neutralizing antibodies either.

[FloridaMan88]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

There is a distinct possibility that a viable vaccine never results

Wouldn’t this be the first coronavirus for which a vaccine was created (assuming a vaccine is actually developed)?

The other coronaviruses have either been too minor (i.e. the common cold) to justify a vaccine or have essentially burned themselves out such as SARS and MERS.

[TLO]

There always seems to be a swift kick in the balls for any potential good news that comes out.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

You're right. The scaling over the last three weeks has been a massive failure. I'm also highly skeptical of the initial reports on antibody tests. The information that came out from the Santa Clara study on antibodies claimed the test had 99.5% specificity, which is almost certainly horseshit.

How has the testing been a failure? Are you talking anitbody testing or general testing?

Also,

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0

Interesting article on the Santa Clara testing, it appears the test was extremely accurate based on science, however, there is legitimate concern of bias on those being tested.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88

Wouldn’t this be the first coronavirus for which a vaccine was created (assuming a vaccine is actually developed)?

The other coronaviruses have either been too minor (i.e. the common cold) to justify a vaccine or have essentially burned themselves out such as SARS and MERS.

The issue with SARS, from what I read, is that the vaccination process proved incredibly difficult because the target cells were epithelial cells in the upper respiratory tract, which were harder to stimulate an effective immune response from. The result when tried in animals is that the vaccine candidates actually made the disease worse.

Unfortunately, people tend to overstate the ease in vaccine development because of the high profile successes we've had with polio, MMR, and smallpox. It's why Margaret Heckler, when she was head of HHS in 1983, claimed that we would have a vaccine for HIV in 18 months. Well, 37 years later, where are we?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by KCChiefsFan88

Wouldn’t this be the first coronavirus for which a vaccine was created (assuming a vaccine is actually developed)?

The other coronaviruses have either been too minor (i.e. the common cold) to justify a vaccine or have essentially burned themselves out such as SARS and MERS.

No. They created a vaccine for SARS v1.0 Not sure about MERS.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

How has the testing been a failure? Are you talking anitbody testing or general testing?

Also,

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0

Interesting article on the Santa Clara testing, it appears the test was extremely accurate based on science, however, there is legitimate concern of bias on those being tested.

Read my posts, please. As I said before, this information has not yet been peer-reviewed, so we know very little of their methodology. That is extremely important.

[O.city]

On the Covid treatment beat with @RobertLangreth: Regeneron’s antibody drug cocktail could be tested in humans by summer and saving lives by fall https://t.co/MuXK8iPgjg via @BW

— Susan Berfield (@susanberfield) April 20, 2020

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Again, the issue is that it just doesn't pass the sniff test. If 32% were exposed, that means that tripling the number of deaths per capita should yield a maximum per-capita death rate. But according to Covidly, Massachusetts is at 251 compared to New York at 924. It's hard to reconcile that, though I know that things are still settling out.

You wouldn't triple the death count, this would just lower the CFR/IFR for Boston area. NYC/NJ is interesting, they say a lot of exposure came from European visitors in Late Feb/Early March and they are counting deaths that may be speculative in their Covid-19 count. They are starting a rigorous antibody test study. It should help determine, along with historical death rates by cause, why they are such an outlier.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

How has the testing been a failure? Are you talking anitbody testing or general testing?

Also,

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01095-0

Interesting article on the Santa Clara testing, it appears the test was extremely accurate based on science, however, there is legitimate concern of bias on those being tested.

We're still having a positive rate of 20% or so. That means were not testing nearly enough people to know where the infection is.

[O.city]

The Stanford test definitely has some not so good parameters that were set up.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Read my posts, please. As I said before, this information has not yet been peer-reviewed, so we know very little of their methodology. That is extremely important.

Don't be so defensive, this isn't DC. I was sharing information on the Stanford study I read this morning. I said it was an interesting article. It goes into way more details on methodology and the actual test on the Santa Clara study than any other article I've read, specifically on how they confirmed the accuracy of the test. I even agreed that their could be other biases based on the controlled group, that could effect the data as well. I was hoping you would actually read it and give us your thoughts.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by O.city

The Stanford test definitely has some not so good parameters that were set up.

I read about that too.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by O.city

We're still having a positive rate of 20% or so. That means were not testing nearly enough people to know where the infection is.

This is because we are testing mostly people with symptoms or who have had contacts with those who tested positive. As Dr. Fauci stated, testing those who show no symptoms is good for that 1 day and it is unrealistic to test people every day. Antibody testing and contract tracing will be much more important going forward.