***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.”

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

What about the experts that don't necessarily agree with him?

Again, it's an odds game. The vast majority of experts DO agree with him (and this includes economists). So I suppose the question is why you are more likely to trust the dissenters than the majority.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Again, it's an odds game. The vast majority of experts DO agree with him (and this includes economists). So I suppose the question is why you are more likely to trust the dissenters than the majority.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaneMcCloud

Then explain to us why people shouldn't trust Dr. Fauci.

Because he hasn't always been right. I never said don't listen to him. I said we should listen to others as well. You say his word isn't gospel yet you are doing just what I am talking about which is arguing with anyone who says his word isn't gospel.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Again, it's an odds game. The vast majority of experts DO agree with him (and this includes economists). So I suppose the question is why you are more likely to trust the dissenters than the majority.

Where did I ever say I didn't? That's twice now you've put words in my mouth and it is something you have consistently done in the past when you don't agree with me.

But you see what you did? You took the argument from solely him to "well others agree with including this guy and that so why don't you trust them?"

['Hamas' Jenkins]

pete,

I would encourage you to look at how treatment guidelines are established and levels of evidence are weighed. Multiple, large randomized clinical trials and meta-analyses of RCT are given an A-rating, a single RCT or meta-analysis with moderate quality evidence is a B-rating, and observational studies, meta-analyses thereof, or expert opinion a C-rating.

What Fauci is espousing isn't just his opinion--it's the weight of everything we've ever learned about infectious disease, especially highly-contagious infectious disease.

So while it may be easy for you to say that it's just Fauci--it's not just him--he's relaying the global scientific consensus on these matters--lessons we've learned from cholera outbreaks, to the 1918 flu, to AIDS.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/po...vid-19-crisis/

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by petegz28

What about the experts that don't necessarily agree with him?

That is where the consensus aspect that Daface mentioned kicks in.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

Here's the study of economists:

http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/po...vid-19-crisis/

I don't think saying public health officials agree with Fauci is going out on a limb, but feel free to Google for that one. You won't find many dissenters there.

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Because he hasn't always been right. I never said don't listen to him. I said we should listen to others as well. You say his word isn't gospel yet you are doing just what I am talking about which is arguing with anyone who says his word isn't gospel.

You mean you have never been wrong hence untrustworthy? I am not even sure at what point he was wrong either.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Where did I ever say I didn't? That's twice now you've put words in my mouth and it is something you have consistently done in the past when you don't agree with me.

But you see what you did? You took the argument from solely him to "well others agree with including this guy and that so why don't you trust them?"

The experts who don't agree with him are the minority. You asked, "What about them?" I took that as "Why shouldn't we trust them?" I explained that. If that wasn't the intent of your question, you'll have to rephrase so I understand.

[BleedingRed]

Watch this

Updated proofs of our paper published in Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease : "Early treatment of COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: A retrospective analysis of 1061 cases in Marseille, France."https://t.co/Rmfqolt1uH pic.twitter.com/o7qIjNw2zd

— Didier Raoult (@raoult_didier) May 13, 2020

Link

"Those receiving the triple-drug combination had a 1.5 times greater likelihood of recovering enough to be discharged, and were 44 percent less likely to die, compared to the double-drug combination."
Now are you guys going to immediately deny or read it? Science is always changing right?

[ToxSocks]

I remember the first few weeks of this when everyone loved Fauci after he said not to be alarmed. After about two weeks or so conservatives flipped on him when he started suggesting things that they didn't like.

Then he became the scapegoat for Trump's decision making. Next thing you know he's public enemy #1, a Deep State stooge who's part of this globalist cabal and can't be trusted. All of a sudden he's a profiteer taking advantage of an epidemic he manifested so he can make millions.

It's always amusing to watch these sorts of things mutate.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Monticore

That is where the consensus aspect that Daface mentioned kicks in.

Which is complete irrelevant to what I was saying. You both and moved things around. You implied all experts agree with him. Now you moved to consensus. Whatever, I am not here to debate this. I am just stating I will not base all of my decisions just from what Fauci has to say. And I would actively invite a discussion that counters his opinion so we are hearing all sides. Some people just don't want to hear any questioning or open discussion. They just want confirmation of their own position.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

The experts who don't agree with him are the minority. You asked, "What about them?" I took that as "Why shouldn't we trust them?" I explained that. If that wasn't the intent of your question, you'll have to rephrase so I understand.

I asked what about them because his statement implied all experts agreed with him. You took it for something I did not say.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Detoxing

I remember the first few weeks of this when everyone loved Fauci after he said not to be alarmed. After about two weeks or so conservatives flipped on him when he started suggesting things that they didn't like.

Then he became the scapegoat for Trump's decision making. Next thing you know he's public enemy #1, a Deep State stooge who's part of this globalist cabal and can't be trusted. All of a sudden he's a profiteer taking advantage of an epidemic he made up to so he can make millions.

It's always amusing to watch these sorts of things mutate.

I think I'd go with "alarming" rather than "amusing," personally.