***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.”

[TLO]

Originally Posted by Donger

Well, it is pretty unprecedented.

In 2 weeks we'll have reached the tip of the iceberg.

[BleedingRed]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Here's the list just for transparency:

BIG_DADDY
BlackOp
CarlosCarson88
Chief Northman
Chiefshrink
Detoxing
FlintHillsChiefs
Hammock Parties
JD10367
KCChiefsFan88
KChiefs1
LiveSteam
LoneWolf
MAHOMO 4 LIFE!
Mennonite
Mr. Kotter
oaklandhater
penguinz
Reerun_KC
scho63
ShowtimeSBMVP
SuperBowl4
Titty Meat
Ubeja Vontell

What is dead may never die

[Loneiguana]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Here's the list just for transparency:

BIG_DADDY
BlackOp
CarlosCarson88
Chief Northman
Chiefshrink
Detoxing
FlintHillsChiefs
Hammock Parties
JD10367
KCChiefsFan88
KChiefs1
LiveSteam
LoneWolf
MAHOMO 4 LIFE!
Mennonite
Mr. Kotter
oaklandhater
penguinz
Reerun_KC
scho63
ShowtimeSBMVP
SuperBowl4
Titty Meat
Ubeja Vontell

That's funny.

[BleedingRed]

Joe Rogan is moving to Texas because of Covid anyone wanna discuss him increasing spotify's value by 5 billion in 48 hours?

[Easy 6]

Hai gai’s, just stopped by to say... TRUMP!

[petegz28]

As mask use rises dramatically, evidence for their effectiveness is 'sparse and contested'

Masks are actually 'not better than nothing,' one expert says; another argues for the 'precautionary principle'

Long a rare phenomenon in the United States even amid the worst flu seasons, mask-wearing has become ubiquitous throughout the country in recent weeks as the coronavirus pandemic has persisted.

A CBS News poll earlier this month found that nearly 70% of Americans wear a mask at least "most of the time" when they go out, with 44% wearing one all of the time.

Those high numbers are due in no small part to the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, which late last month began recommending that every American wear a face covering when away from home. That suggestion was a sharp reversal from earlier CDC guidance which said that only symptomatic individuals, as well as those caring for sick people, should wear masks.

Prior to the about-face, the no-mask position reflected the consensus view of top U.S. public health authorities.

Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the physicians in charge of the U.S.'s response to the pandemic, said in March that "there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask."

On Feb. 29, U.S. Surgeon General Jerome Adams said in a tweet: “Seriously people—STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective” in preventing the spread of

Seriously people- STOP BUYING MASKS!

They are NOT effective in preventing general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!
https://t.co/UxZRwxxKL9

— U.S. Surgeon General (@Surgeon_General) February 29, 2020

At a conference at the World Health Organization in early April, meanwhile, Mike Ryan, the executive director of WHO's Health Emergencies Program, said that there is "no specific evidence to suggest that the wearing of masks by the mass population has any particular benefit."

Some experts have claimed that new knowledge of asymptomatic transmission of the coronavirus led to public health officials radically reversing their advice on mask-wearing. Yet asymptomatic spread of the disease has been known since at least January, when a study in the New England Journal of Medicine appeared to confirm as much. Fauci himself acknowledged the results of that study on Feb. 3, over a month before he reaffirmed his opposition to general mask usage.

So what changed in between then and now? Has compelling new evidence emerged that suggests widespread mask usage is effective at slowing the spread of the coronavirus? Has such evidence ever existed? In the view of some dissenting experts, the answers are, respectively: Not much, no, and no. Yet, for now at least, a broad consensus of expert opinion continues to insist it is necessary to wear them for the duration of the pandemic, if for no other reason than to be careful.

'Why we expect it to work in pandemic, I don’t get'

Lisa Brosseau and Margaret Sietsema are both experts on respiratory protection and infectious diseases who have taught at the University of Chicago (Brosseau is retired). On Apr. 1, they published a paper for the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy in which they stated bluntly: "We do not recommend requiring the general public who do not have symptoms of COVID-19-like illness to routinely wear cloth or surgical masks."

They cited a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of such masks in slowing the spread of the disease, as well as risks that those wearing them may "relax other distancing efforts because they have a sense of protection."

Brosseau told Just the News this week her opinions had not changed in the 50 days since she and Sietsema published the article.

"What we know about this disease is that there seems to be a lot of asymptomatic transmission going on," she said. "That’s coming from talking and breathing. Those are mostly smaller particles."

"Any filter that’s made out of woven material not designed to be a filter is not going to collect particles in an efficient way. It will collect larger ones with some efficiency but not smaller ones."

Brosseau said that infected individuals generate around 900 particles of the disease a minute when talking or breathing. Current theories, she explained, estimate that an individual needs about 1,000 particles to become infected by the virus.

"Cloth masks stop about 50 percent of particles," she said. "If it takes you two or three minutes to get an infectious dose, the mask may move the infection time up a little bit longer." The slight extension in the time it takes to become infected, she argued, would be insufficient to protect those in customer-facing service work like "retail, or someone driving a bus."

She argued that surgical masks are not much better. They were "originally designed to prevent the emission of large droplets for surgeons in surgical setting, to prevent bacterial infections during surgery," she said.

"For some reason at some point, surgical masks started to be worn as protective equipment for healthcare workers to protect against droplets being sprayed into the face," Brosseau said. "That was never the purpose of them. It was to prevent large droplets being spewed onto wounds."

Brosseau estimates that such masks have about an 80% filtration efficiency. "They don’t prevent you from inhaling," she said. "They have ear loops. They fold. They have huge amounts of gaps. Particles take the path of least resistance. They go right around edges."

As far as N95 masks go, she said: "The problem with any kind of respirator is that it needs to be fit-tested. They’re much better filters than surgical and cloth masks. But if you didn’t fit-test it, you may not get anything better than a cloth or surgical mask."

Brosseau was asked if masks were better than nothing even with their inefficiencies. "My problem is the masks are not better than nothing. They encourage people to get close to others and spend more time in close settings. It’s egregious that we’re requiring them for workers. We would never, ever suggest a cloth mask in an industrial setting for protection of dust. Why we expect it to work in pandemic, I don’t get."

'You just have to apply the precautionary principle'

Brosseau appears to be in the minority among medical officials, at least in her outspokenness. Most health authorities these days appear to have strongly endorsed near-constant mask usage while away from home.

Edwin Michael, an epidemiology and disease transmission professor at the University of Notre Dame, for example, believes masks are a necessary part of pandemic mitigation. He told Just the News that, though evidence for the effectiveness of cloth and surgical masks is lacking, people should still wear them.

"There are very few control trials regarding masks," he said. "The evidence is mixed, because studies look at the three different types of masks [N95, cloth and surgical]. There are about five peer-reviewed, systematic reviews."

He stressed, however, that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence," meaning one shouldn't necessarily conclude that mask-wearing is useless just because there's as-of-yet no evidence that it helps.

The professor shared with Just the News a paper authored by an international team of researchers and published last month. In it, the scientists admit that "the evidence base on the efficacy and acceptability of the different types of face mask in preventing respiratory infections during epidemics is sparse and contested." Still, they argue that individuals should follow "the precautionary principle" in wearing them, given that "we have little to lose and potentially something to gain from this measure."

Michael also cited the example of Austria, which mandated face masks in public from April 6 onward and which he said saw a consequent massive drop in coronavirus infections as a result.

Austria did indeed see a drop in coronavirus infections after their mask mandate. Less clear is whether masks had anything to do with it. Coronavirus infections were already dropping sharply by the time the mask mandate went into place. Multiple data websites put Austria's coronavirus peak at Mar. 26-27, after which cases began dropping sharply. The pandemic, in other words, was already on a steep decline in Austria about 10 days before a mask mandate went into effect there.

Joseph Allen, an assistant professor of exposure assessment science at Harvard's T.H. Chan School of Public Health, also believes strongly in mask-wearing. "You shouldn’t leave the home without a mask and some hand sanitizer," he said on Tuesday during a conference call with media. "Universal mask-wearing should happen. It’s supported by the scientific evidence."

Allen pointed reporters to an article he wrote for the Washington Post in early April in which he strongly argued in favor of mask usage as well as numerous other mitigation measures such as physical distancing. Allen's article did not cite any studies or evidence to bolster the claim that masks will actually help mitigate the spread of coronavirus, but a few other scientific investigations offer some suggestions.

A paper published by a team of researchers in South Korea last month had participants cough on to petri dishes while wearing no mask, cotton masks, and surgical masks. They concluded that "neither surgical nor cotton masks effectively filtered SARS–CoV-2 during coughs by infected patients," though they acknowledged that they did not know "whether masks shorten the travel distance of droplets during coughing" and that further study was needed to determine mask efficacy concerning asymptomatic patients.

In a more promising study, researchers in Hong Kong this month announced findings that surgical masks were up to 75% effective at filtering coronavirus particles. The researchers used hamsters as test subjects, placing one group infected with COVID-19 next to another, healthy group. Surgical masks were stretched across openings of the cages, with a fan blowing air from one cage to the next.

The experiment "shows very clearly that if infected hamsters or humans — especially asymptomatic or symptomatic ones — put on masks, they actually protect other people," one researcher concluded. The study has not yet been published in a medical journal.

Brosseau cites a 1920 study authored by W.H Kellogg, the then-executive officer of the California State Board of Health, who was examining the effect mask mandates had on the transmission of the Spanish flu during that pandemic.

Though authored a century ago under markedly different conditions, Kellogg came to conclusions similar to those of Brosseau, writing that "masks have not been demonstrated to have a degree of efficiency that would warrant their compulsory application for the checking of epidemics.”

Brosseau herself stated that, although she feels masks are effectively useless at halting pandemics, there are other, better steps one can take to mitigate the spread of coronavirus, including a continuation of social distancing.

The message she thinks people should take from face masks is: "Don't count on it."

"Don't spend any time close to people," she said. "Don't stop the distancing."

https://justthenews.com/politics-pol...ess-sparse-and

[Monticore]

Originally Posted by BleedingRed

Joe Rogan is moving to Texas because of Covid anyone wanna discuss him increasing spotify's value by 5 billion in 48 hours?

No , because it is Joe Rogan.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

(wall of text)

Why do you post information from nearly three months ago as if our understanding hasn't changed?

[Donger]

Have you been wearing a mask recently, pete?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Why do you post information from nearly three months ago as if our understanding hasn't changed?

Huh, it was posted yesterday. Why don'y you actually read the article before you say shit that is wrong?

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Huh, it was posted yesterday. Why don'y you actually read the article before you say shit that is wrong?

The Tweet in the middle of it was from February.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Why do you post information from nearly three months ago as if our understanding hasn't changed?

May 20th was 3 months ago?

[lewdog]

Originally Posted by petegz28

https://justthenews.com/politics-pol...ess-sparse-and

Dumbass post has already been discussed. Old news from March which was mostly used as a measure to stop people from hoarding masks from front line workers and because at that time it was believed COVID-19 was more of a surface virus.

It's also been shown in the past month that this is more of an airborne transmission than a surface transmission like previously thought. Masks help stop the spread of the airborne virus if the person wearing it were contagious.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by DaFace

The Tweet in the middle of it was from February.

It's in the linked article. Perhaps if you read the it instead of jumping down my throat without reading it first you would have known that????

[Lzen]

Originally Posted by Mecca

That is probably the most overused word in the entire outbreak.

dra·co·ni·an
/drəˈkōnēən/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
(of laws or their application) excessively harsh and severe.
"the Nazis destroyed the independence of the press by a series of draconian laws"