***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.”

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Pants

What is O.city's take and what is my take?

Are you referring to everything he and I have stated so far in this thread of thousands upon thousands of posts or are you referring strictly to me addressing his statement of:

"You wanna stop the spread where the majority of the spread happens, no?"

Apparently you seem to think I have misunderstood your take so why don't you clarify it for me then so I know for sure where you are coming from?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Fish

I don't know. Refer to the experts who are best positioned to make those decisions.

Which ones? I think we can agree any of us could cite experts that would pose any numbers of recommendations from extreme lock downs to Sweden style and everything in between.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Pants

I don't understand what you're suggesting. Of all the people on this forum, I figured you would understand public health more than basically anyone.

I guess in a vacuum and as a general statement, your post makes sense. It makes zero sense in real life applications, however.

It's virtually impossible to mitigate the spread of the virus at home. This is why you want to stop it from making it there to begin with.

I can't believe I actually have to type that.

To go a little farther on this, I'm basing my thoughts here on the fact that it's so widespread, it's of our best interest at this point to mitigate it in homes. I dont' think there's alot of spread in places people are in sparingly or for small amounts of time like grocery stores or shopping etc.

I don't really knwo that there is an ideal scenario at this point to be honest. It's shit or shit.

[Donger]

It's not like this is a new thing. It was just ignored:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/openingamerica/

[Pants]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Apparently you seem to think I have misunderstood your take so why don't you clarify it for me then so I know for sure where you are coming from?

Nah. If you don't want to answer my question, that's fine.

[O.city]

1/ All masks are not the same, and it's hard to tell which ones work better, but this article provides some insights.

First, "paper" surgical masks are really very very good.
https://t.co/LhT5sWiW69 pic.twitter.com/LlxL7nm42m

— Farzad Mostashari (@Farzad_MD) August 9, 2020

Here's a good breakdown on masks.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by O.city

To go a little farther on this, I'm basing my thoughts here on the fact that it's so widespread, it's of our best interest at this point to mitigate it in homes. I dont' think there's alot of spread in places people are in sparingly or for small amounts of time like grocery stores or shopping etc.

I don't really knwo that there is an ideal scenario at this point to be honest. It's shit or shit.

Well, if you successfully mitigate it on a public level, the spread that happens at home stops there.

Clearly you have to improve the public mitigation efforts in order to curb the infections from making their way home to begin with.

I don't know what measures could be taken at home once the infection is there. To make matters worse, oftentimes, by the time an infected individual expresses symptoms, the spread most likely already occurred at home.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by O.city

1/ All masks are not the same, and it's hard to tell which ones work better, but this article provides some insights.

First, "paper" surgical masks are really very very good.
https://t.co/LhT5sWiW69 pic.twitter.com/LlxL7nm42m

— Farzad Mostashari (@Farzad_MD) August 9, 2020

Here's a good breakdown on masks.

Interesting that bandanas and fleece are largely useless.

Here's the key chart.

3/ an interesting finding: valved N95 masks were significantly worse than fitted, nonvalved n95 masks for preventing the spread of droplets

Makes sense- valve lets out breath. These may be better at protecting the wearer, but not as good as surgical masks for preventing spread. pic.twitter.com/0kJR401rgM

— Farzad Mostashari (@Farzad_MD) August 9, 2020

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Pants

Well, if you successfully mitigate it on a public level, the spread that happens at home stops there.

Clearly you have to improve the public mitigation efforts in order to curb the infections from making their way home to begin with.

I don't know what measures could be taken at home once the infection is there. To make matters worse, oftentimes, by the time an infected individual expresses symptoms, the spread most likely already occurred at home.

At this point, to get to the point where it seems everyone wants it to be (no infections) you're gonna have to heavily do both. That would entail hotels to house those who can't successfully isolate at their homes.

I don't think anyone has the political capitol or want to to pull that off though.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by O.city

At this point, to get to the point where it seems everyone wants it to be (no infections) you're gonna have to heavily do both. That would entail hotels to house those who can't successfully isolate at their homes.

I don't think anyone has the political capitol or want to to pull that off though.

Absolutely. I can't speak for everyone but all I want is to avoid wildfires.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Interesting that bandanas and fleece are largely useless.

Yeah.

N95's are the best for the wearer, so if you're worried about catching it thats what you need.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Pants

Absolutely. I can't speak for everyone but all I want is to avoid wildfires.

For sure. Thats where we are now.

I've been keeping a close eye on some of these hotspots and they're significantly slowing it appears. So I'm hopeful if we can control things without hardcore tools, that we can keep that up around the country.

[jd1020]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Interesting that bandanas and fleece are largely useless.

Here's the key chart.

Wearing fleece is worse than wearing nothing? That seems... odd.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by jd1020

Wearing fleece is worse than wearing nothing? That seems... odd.

Yeah, not sure what that's about. It could just be explained by error (which is what the bars represent).

I didn't read the methodology, but in theory maybe people are more cautious with nothing than they are when wearing a fleece mask?

Regardless, I wouldn't read much into it beyond "fleece isn't good."

[Donger]

Neck fleeces, also called gaiter masks and often used by runners, were the least effective. In fact, wearing a fleece mask resulted in a higher number of respiratory droplets because the material seemed to break down larger droplets into smaller particles that are more easily carried away with air.

Folded bandanas and knitted masks also performed poorly and did not offer much protection.

"We were extremely surprised to find that the number of particles measured with the fleece actually exceeded the number of particles measured without wearing any mask," Fischer said. "We want to emphasize that we really encourage people to wear masks, but we want them to wear masks that actually work."