***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.”

[mr. tegu]

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.

Given the amount of asymptomatic and mild cases there really isn’t any reason to assume a tripling of hospitalizations or death rates. The safe assumption we can make is that we are much closer to catching all of the severe cases than we are to catching all cases.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

Given the amount of asymptomatic and mild cases there really isn’t any reason to assume a tripling of hospitalizations or death rates. The safe assumption we can make is that we are much closer to catching all of the severe cases than we are to catching all cases.

Right, that's the point. New York is already more than triple the per-capita death rate of Massachusetts. That shouldn't be possible if it's true that 32% of people in the latter already have caught it and you assume that death rates shouldn't vary much among cases.

[Demonpenz]

Home.depot has been meeting goals in like half a.month with the lockdown. Hopefully smaller hardware stores are like that as well.

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Right, that's the point. New York is already more than triple the per-capita death rate of Massachusetts. That shouldn't be possible if it's true that 32% of people in the latter already have caught it and you assume that death rates shouldn't vary much among cases.

We don’t need to assume death rates are relatively equal among all cases. We know they aren’t based on per capita rates in various locations.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by mr. tegu

We don’t need to assume death rates are relatively equal among all cases. We know they aren’t based on per capita rates in various locations.

You think that New Yorkers are inherently more likely to die from it? For what reason?

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

And just because things are so awesome as it is, we've got a CO2 shortage threatening the beverage industry.

If this isn't evidence of the butterfly effect I don't know what is.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by DaFace

You think that New Yorkers are inherently more likely to die from it? For what reason?

Wouldn't one have to assume that NY has proportionally more unknown cases as well so the CFR wouldn't be different?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

You think that New Yorkers are inherently more likely to die from it? For what reason?

Viral load?

[mr. tegu]

Originally Posted by DaFace

You think that New Yorkers are inherently more likely to die from it? For what reason?

You are welcome to explore the reasoning for the wide range of death rates. It would be interesting to see. Perhaps the suspected various strands plays a part. But the point is that at this time based on available numbers assuming equal death rates just doesn’t work as an assumption. However, if you add a ton of cases then New York could be more equal to other places on the death rate, which would then support the idea put forth about many more infected.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Wouldn't one have to assume that NY has proportionally more unknown cases as well so the CFR wouldn't be different?

NYC has already exceeded the lower bound of the CFR based on the antibody study. Therefore, it cannot be correct.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Wouldn't one have to assume that NY has proportionally more unknown cases as well so the CFR wouldn't be different?

I'm ignoring cases entirely and just focusing on deaths per capita, so that shouldn't make a difference.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Viral load?

Possibly.

Anyway, my point isn't that it's impossible that 32% of people in Boston have it - only that it seems very unlikely given what we're seeing in NYC. Time will tell.

[SAUTO]

Originally Posted by petegz28

I have and discussed this in great detail last weel. And with the exception of the first week in April Sundays were not "down". Last week they were lower and then lower again on Monday.

Maybe they were just lower and that's that?

Not sure where your getting numbers from

3-31 tues 914
4-1 w 1050
2 th 974
3 fr 1051
4 sat 1330
5 sun 1167 !!!
6 mon 1257 !!!
7 tues 1973
8 we’d 1943
9 th 1901
10 fri 2035
11 sat 1830
12 sun 1578!!!
13 mon 1535!!!
14 tues 2405
15 wed 2016
16 thurs 2176
17 fri 2578
18 sat 1867!!!
19 sun 1861!!!


See how Sunday and Mondays are consistently lower than any days around them???

[TLO]

MO DHSS numbers for yesterday

Cases in Missouri: 5,667

Total Deaths: 176

Patients tested in Missouri (by all labs): approximately 55,873
As of 2:00 p.m. CT, April 19

Numbers for today

Cases in Missouri: 5,807

Total Deaths: 177

Patients tested in Missouri (by all labs): approximately 55,873 (not yet updated for 4/20/20)

[Bwana]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

I can't speak for the others but Pizza Hut is wrong. Last numbers I looked at had Pizza Huts sales profit down 30%. This virus is hitting everyone in the restaurant business.

They are hiring 30K extra workers.

http://blog.pizzahut.com/pizza-hut-e...rbside-pickup/

https://www.impactbnd.com/blog/not-a...uring-covid-19