***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.”

[Chief Roundup]

We had a confirmed positive Covid-19 last week on Wednesday. The person was quarantined and everyone that she was in contact with was isolated. All those not infected are back to work today. The incubation period can be up to 14 days therefore the reason people are suppose to isolate for that same time frame.
There are several of us that are very bothered by this and have reported it up the chain to see what the resolution is because this goes against the policies and procedures set forth by the University.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by Chief Roundup

We had a confirmed positive Covid-19 last week on Wednesday. The person was quarantined and everyone that she was in contact with was isolated. All those not infected are back to work today. The incubation period can be up to 14 days therefore the reason people are suppose to isolate for that same time frame.
There are several of us that are very bothered by this and have reported it up the chain to see what the resolution is because this goes against the policies and procedures set forth by the University.

What part of this is the issue?

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

What part of this is the issue?

I would imagine it could be the whole part about being back at work 5 days later after coming into contact with someone confirmed to have covid.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by jd1020

I would imagine it could be the whole part about being back at work 5 days later after coming into contact with someone confirmed to have covid.

That is what he is claiming.

The person was quarantined and everyone that she was in contact with was isolated.

I'm going to guess that no one back at work was deemed a "close contact" which requires a 15 minute contentious exposure within 6ft.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I'm going to guess that no one back at work was deemed a "close contact" which requires a 15 minute contentious exposure within 6ft.

Really? 15 minutes and no less? I havent heard that claim.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Really? 15 minutes and no less? I havent heard that claim.

Per CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...t-tracing.html

Contact tracing will be conducted for close contacts (any individual within 6 feet of an infected person for at least 15 minutes) of laboratory-confirmed or probable COVID-19 patients.

We had a situation where a person was exposed well within 6ft 2 separate times for 6-8 minutes each time to someone who ended up symptomatic and tested positive. Health department said they were not considered a close contact. No need for quarantine.

[doomy3]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

That is what he is claiming.



I'm going to guess that no one back at work was deemed a "close contact" which requires a 15 minute contentious exposure within 6ft.

This. That’s what most businesses are using since that’s what CDC considers close contact. It seems pretty arbitrary to me though.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

Per CDC.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...t-tracing.html



We had a situation where a person was exposed well within 6ft 2 separate times for 6-8 minutes each time to someone who ended up symptomatic and tested positive. Health department said they were not considered a close contact. No need for quarantine.

Would be kind of interested to hear how they came up with this 15 minute definition. Sounds like some made up shit that will aid in the continued failure to contain the virus in the US.

The only difference I see is that your chances of contracting the virus grow the longer you are in contact with someone, doesn't really mean you cant contract the virus if you just had a brief encounter with them.

[Donger]

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...endations.html

***Data are insufficient to precisely define the duration of time that constitutes a prolonged exposure. Recommendations vary on the length of time of exposure, but 15 minutes of close exposure can be used as an operational definition. Brief interactions are less likely to result in transmission; however, symptoms and the type of interaction (e.g., did the infected person cough directly into the face of the exposed individual) remain important.

[petegz28]

So where are we with Sweden today, are they good or bad? Asking for a friend

[O.city]

If cases start spiking and leading to deaths in these other countries that had it under control, sadly, I think Sweden will start looking better and better off

[displacedinMN]

Vikings' head trainer tests positive for coronavirus

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by O.city

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1....20.20157149v1

So this is basically saying people with no time around kids and their sniffly coronavirus colds have a higher incidence of severe infections.

Interesting

That is bad news for me. I try to stay away from children as much as possible.

[MahomesMagic]

Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed
John P.A. Ioannidis (1), Sally Cripps (2), Martin A. Tanner (3)

ABSTRACT
Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent
with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates,
lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available
interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, looking at only one or a few
dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and
bandwagon effects and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures.

The four garden variety coronaviruses may be causing such
outbreaks every year.
20,21 One of them, OC43 seems to have been introduced in humans as
recently as 1890, probably causing a “bad influenza year” with over a million deaths.
22 Based on
what we know now, SARS-CoV-2 may be closer to OC43 than SARS-CoV-1. This does not
mean it is not serious: its initial human introduction can be highly lethal, unless we protect those
at risk.



https://forecasters.org/wp-content/u...25062020-1.pdf

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed
John P.A. Ioannidis (1), Sally Cripps (2), Martin A. Tanner (3)

ABSTRACT
Epidemic forecasting has a dubious track-record, and its failures became more prominent
with COVID-19. Poor data input, wrong modeling assumptions, high sensitivity of estimates,
lack of incorporation of epidemiological features, poor past evidence on effects of available
interventions, lack of transparency, errors, lack of determinacy, looking at only one or a few
dimensions of the problem at hand, lack of expertise in crucial disciplines, groupthink and
bandwagon effects and selective reporting are some of the causes of these failures.

The four garden variety coronaviruses may be causing such
outbreaks every year.
20,21 One of them, OC43 seems to have been introduced in humans as
recently as 1890, probably causing a “bad influenza year” with over a million deaths.
22 Based on
what we know now, SARS-CoV-2 may be closer to OC43 than SARS-CoV-1. This does not
mean it is not serious: its initial human introduction can be highly lethal, unless we protect those
at risk.



https://forecasters.org/wp-content/u...25062020-1.pdf

That's not very reassuring.