***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.”

[LiveSteam]

Political hackery

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

They claim that their test has a specificity of 99.5%. I haven't seen any external validation of that particular brand, and the lateral flow tests are highly dependent upon training the observer (which can result in interoperator disagreement that they address).

Overall, their methodology is good, but even they admit:

"The specificity was acceptable at 99.5% (98.7-99.9) but leads to a
low positive predictive value in low-prevalence areas."

The specificity is claimed to be 99.5%. So, if they test 1000 people, five of those will be false positives, but if 1.7% of the population actually has the disease, then over 1/4 of the positive tests are false positives. ((17/(17+5)) and they admit uncertainty over reactivity with other coronavirus antibodies.

They also admit to the lack of a gold standard test to weigh their test against.

This is actually a really well-designed study given their limitations that they rightfully acknowledge, but the low prevalence does throw quite a bit of potential skew into the numbers.

This is a well-designed study and by far the largest so far, it estimates a IFR of .0008 or .08% for those under age 70. I found this finding in the study very timely, especially after earlier discussions today in this thread:

Using available data on fatalities and population numbers a combined IFR in patients younger than 70 is estimated at 82 per 100,000 (CI: 59-154) infections. Conclusions: The IFR was estimated to be slightly lower than previously reported from other countries not using seroprevalence data. The IFR, including only individuals with no comorbidity, is likely several fold lower than the current estimate. This may have implications for risk mitigation.

[TLO]

Just to be clear - I know nobody gives a shit about this but me, but I'm going to post this for my own sanity.

John Hopkins had Missouri at 373 deaths about 30 minutes ago.

Now it's at 330.

Does it matter? No.

Does it mess with my brain? For some reason, yes.

Thank you for your time.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by TLO

Just to be clear - I know nobody gives a shit about this but me, but I'm going to post this for my own sanity.

John Hopkins had Missouri at 373 deaths about 30 minutes ago.

Now it's at 330.

Does it matter? No.

Does it mess with my brain? For some reason, yes.

Thank you for your time.

This is just the way my brain works, but perhaps you should start a spreadsheet of your own to track the numbers, but only pay attention to a three-day (or more) moving average. These daily numbers updates will just make you go crazy.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by DaFace

This is just the way my brain works, but perhaps you should start a spreadsheet of your own to track the numbers, but only pay attention to a three-day (or more) moving average. These daily numbers updates will just make you go crazy.

I like this idea. Good suggestion!

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

This is a well-designed study and by far the largest so far, it estimates a IFR of .0008 or .08% for those under age 70. I found this finding in the study very timely, especially after earlier discussions today in this thread:

The antibodies tests are not accurate ( at this time) making the rest of the study useless. Hamas explained it quite well.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Monticore

The antibodies tests are not accurate ( at this time) making the rest of the study useless. Hamas explained it quite well.

To add on to my earlier rants, the FDA decision to allow whatever tests just happened to be out there with very little vetting has also made this whole thing a shit show. I don't fault them for their decision since it was vital to get testing rolling, but man...it's a problem when trying to really understand this thing.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Monticore

The antibodies tests are not accurate ( at this time) making the rest of the study useless. Hamas explained it quite well.

Come on...

Hamas even said this was a well designed study, and no offense to Hamas, but these people seem pretty well educated and used the variable in their estimates...

AUTHOR INFORMATION
Christian Erikstrup19 (christian.erikstrup@skejby.rm.dk), Christoffer Egeberg Hother2 (christoffer.egeberg.hother@regionh.dk), Ole Birger Vestager Pedersen3 (olbp@regionsjaelland.dk), Kåre Mølbak4 (krm@ssi.dk), Robert Leo Skov4 (rsk@ssi.dk), Dorte Kinggaard Holm5 (dorte.holm@rsyd.dk), Susanne Sækmose3 (sugs@regionsjaelland.dk), Anna Christine Nilsson5 (anna.christine.nilsson@rsyd.dk), Patrick Terrence Brooks2 (patrick.terrence.brooks@regionh.dk), Jens Kjaergaard Boldsen6 (jenbol@rm.dk), Christina Mikkelsen2 (christina.mikkelsen@regionh.dk), Mikkel Gybel-Brask2 (mikkel.gybel-brask@regionh.dk), Erik Sørensen2 (erik.soerensen@regionh.dk), Khoa Manh Dinh1 (khoadinh@rm.dk), Susan Mikkelsen1 (susanmke@rm.dk), Bjarne Kuno Møller1 (bjamoell@rm.dk), Thure Haunstrup7 (t.haunstrup@rn.dk), Lene Harritshøj2 (lene.holm.harritshoej@regionh.dk), Bitten Aagaard Jensen7 (biaaj@rn.dk), Henrik Hjalgrim8 (hhj@ssi.dk), Søren Thue Lillevang5 (soren.lillevang@rsyd.dk) and Henrik Ullum2 (henrik.ullum@regionh.dk)
1 Department of Clinical Immunology, Aarhus University Hospital and Department of Clinical Medicine Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark;
2 Department of Clinical Immunology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark;
3 Department of Clinical Immunology, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark;
4 Infection Control, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark;
5 Department of Clinical Immunology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark;
6 Department of Clinical Immunology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus, DenmarkD;
7 Department of Clinical Immunology, Aalborg University Hospital, Aalborg, Denmark;
8 Department of Epidemiology Research, Statens Serum Institut, Copenhagen, Denmark
↵* Corresponding author; email: christian.erikstrup@skejby.rm.dk

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by IowaHawkeyeChief

Come on...

Hamas even said this was a well designed study, and no offense to Hamas, but these people seem pretty well educated and used the variable in their estimates...

They admitted the issue with the testing themselves.

They are basing their guess off of another guess.

[kgrund]

Originally Posted by TLO

As someone who has followed this very closely, you're 100% right. It's unfortunate that they were very, very off on some states. But nationally it has done a very good job.

We'll see how it plays out in the end.

Within modeling this would make sense as higher the given number of items in a pool the more predective it becomes.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by DaFace

To add on to my earlier rants, the FDA decision to allow whatever tests just happened to be out there with very little vetting has also made this whole thing a shit show. I don't fault them for their decision since it was vital to get testing rolling, but man...it's a problem when trying to really understand this thing.

This was a study in Denmark of nearly 10,000 blood donors, also from the study:

The seroprevalence was adjusted for assay sensitivity and specificity taking the uncertainties of the test validation into account when reporting the 95% confidence intervals (CI)

[jaa1025]

Originally Posted by Monticore

The antibodies tests are not accurate ( at this time) making the rest of the study useless. Hamas explained it quite well.

Same can be said for the swab tests though. I've read somewhere that the tests may give a false negative reading 30% of the time.

That's if they test you. We took my 5 month old to Childrens Mercy twice about 3 weeks ago and they diagnosed him with Bronchiolitis and RSV. He had a fever of 100.8 and a cough. They said he met the symptoms of COVID-19 but did not meet the standards of testing but requested we all quarantine for 14 days. I called everywhere trying to get tests and we could not get a test in JOCO. How many more are in my son's shoes where they show symptoms but refuse to test?

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by jaa1025

Same can be said for the swab tests though. I've read somewhere that the tests may give a false negative reading 30% of the time.

That's if they test you. We took my 5 month old to Childrens Mercy twice about 3 weeks ago and they diagnosed him with Bronchiolitis and RSV. He had a fever of 100.8 and a cough. They said he met the symptoms of COVID-19 but did not meet the standards of testing but requested we all quarantine for 14 days. I called everywhere trying to get tests and we could not get a test in JOCO. How many more are in my son's shoes where they show symptoms but refuse to test?

People want answers and they want them now for many different reasons and I understand but jumping on every number , trial, model right now is not helping , we don’t know can be an answer , it is not the answer a anybody wants but it is what it is.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Monticore

People want answers and they want them now for many different reasons and I understand but jumping on every number , trial, model right now is not helping , we don’t know can be an answer , it is not the answer a anybody wants but it is what it is.

I don’t disagree, but in real time you kind of have to do what you have to do.

[IowaHawkeyeChief]

Originally Posted by Monticore

They admitted the issue with the testing themselves.

They are basing their guess off of another guess.

Yes, as Hamas stated this is a well designed study, that could have 1/4 error in testing, which they say they adjusted for in their conclusions. The difference is still a .11 IFR instead of a .08 if they didn't adjust properly. This is by far the best of these studies so far and peer review will be interesting, but you can't continue to discount these test. They are buying the antibody test off the internet and they have measures in place to gauge their accuracy.