***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.”

[suzzer99]

It's sad that apparently to convince people to wear masks, you have to show them that masks might actually protect them, and not just others.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

It's sad that apparently to convince people to wear masks, you have to show them that masks might actually protect them, and not just others.

Hey that's great.

So why did it take 102 years for "the experts" to come to such a conclusion?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Bill Brasky

Myth: Masks only protect others, not the wearer

Fact: Masks protect both the wearer and everyone around them
Initially, researchers thought cloth face masks only prevented the wearer from infecting people around them but didn’t actually protect the wearer. However, now scientists are starting to understand that the masks serve an important purpose for the wearer: decreasing how much virus they’re exposed to.

If you’re wearing a mask and are near someone who’s sick, your mask will prevent a significant amount of droplets from the sick person from getting in your nose and mouth.

“The amount of virus you get may correlate to how ill you get. Even if someone cuts down exposure but doesn’t avoid it, their illness may be milder,” Harris explains.

Common sense isn't common.

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Hey that's great.

So why did it take 102 years for "the experts" to come to such a conclusion?

It took a month - because they were running the SARS-I playbook and mainly were trying to prevent an even worse PPE shortage than we already had - as has been pointed out to you and others itt ad-infinitum.

It was still a stupid mistake by the CDC. No one is holding them blameless. But it's not any reason to think masks don't work.

We figured out in this thread that masks work before the CDC finally turned around.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

It took a month - because they were trying to prevent an even worse PPE shortage than we already had - as has been pointed out to you and others itt ad-infinitum.

Except most people aren't using N95 and other medical grade PPE.

They're using... cloth. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is more abundantly sourced now than it was in 1918.

[suzzer99]

Even surgical masks were hard to come by in March. Hospitals near me were taking them as donations.

And people were already trying to buy up as much N-95 masks as they could. They were being gouged like crazy on Amazon and ebay and through wholesalers. The belief at the time was that paper masks do more to protect others from you than the other way around (although it's turning out paper masks reduce viral load and probably protect the wearer more than originally thought).

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

Even surgical masks were hard to come by in March. Hospitals near me were taking them as donations.

And people were already trying to buy up as much N-95 masks as they could. They were being gouged like crazy on Amazon and ebay and through wholesalers. The belief at the time was that paper masks do more to protect others from you than the other way around (although it's turning out paper masks reduce viral load and probably protect the wearer more than originally thought).

Hey that's great.

If cloth masks were acceptable for protecting other people in 1918, and if cloth masks are acceptable for protecting other people presently, then why weren't cloth masks acceptable for protecting other people seven months ago?

[Baby Lee]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

It took a month - because they were running the SARS-I playbook and mainly were trying to prevent an even worse PPE shortage than we already had - as has been pointed out to you and others itt ad-infinitum.

It was still a stupid mistake by the CDC. No one is holding them blameless. But it's not any reason to think masks don't work.

We figured out in this thread that masks work before the CDC finally turned around.

I'm updating my calendar, does anyone know the date of the CDC election?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Hey that's great.

If cloth masks were acceptable for protecting other people in 1918, and if cloth masks are acceptable for protecting other people presently, then why weren't cloth masks acceptable for protecting other people seven months ago?

Does this really need to be covered again?

[KCUnited]

With cloth , N-95s or face shields?

[suzzer99]

Originally Posted by Donger

Does this really need to be covered again?

And again, and again, and again, and again... and the one time you don't get the crayons out to painstakingly draw it up it's HAH - GOTCHA!

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

And again, and again, and again, and again...

Tap out acknowledged.

[suzzer99]

LOL exactly proving my point.

I literally answered your exact question several posts up. People don't just make cloth masks, they go out and buy the best mask they can get which puts even more strain on the raging PPE shortage. Also SARS-I wasn't airborne. They were playing it like SARS-I at first.

You don't want an answer. You just want to troll. And like all trolls - you're going on my ignore from now on. I can't think of any post of value I've ever read of yours. They're all just snarky one-liner trolls. Life's too short for this nonsense.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

LOL exactly

Answer the question.


Why weren't cloth masks recommended for use months ago?

[Donger]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Tap out acknowledged.

Is it your opinion that masks are not an effective method of reducing the spread of this virus?