***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.”

[phisherman]

Originally Posted by stevieray

That guys wife didn't die because of covid patients. His wife died because she was sick. If the hospital thinks covid patients have priority, that's on them.

Hospitals are FOR profit. If their 15 to 40 beds are filling up for any reason, they don't have enough. That's on them.

Look at Research then look at St .Lukes. one looks like a hospital, the other a FANCY ASS OFFICE BULIDING. not a coinkydink how much the word money has been mentioned in this thread.

Saint Luke's Health System and all affiliated entities for not-for-profit.

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by SupDock

Please, link the studies.

There's a site that compiles all the global HCQ Covid studies. Granted, those that include zinc is a very small %.

I wasn't just referring to studies, although there have been some really promising ones. I was referring to anecdotal evidence too. Of which there was an abundance. Of course, any mention of such things is erased from social media.

The question is....why are you convinced that zinc + hcq is not effective?

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

There's a site that compiles all the global HCQ Covid studies. Granted, those that include zinc is a very small %.

I wasn't just referring to studies, although there have been some really promising ones. I was referring to anecdotal evidence too. Of which there was an abundance. Of course, any mention of such things is erased from social media.

The question is....why are you convinced that zinc + hcq is not effective?

Because in science, we don’t start with the assumption that something works. In fact, we try not to have an assumption either way. There hasn’t been any clinical data to show it works, so why would I use it?

I’m not a clinical researcher, so I generally don’t use unproven therapies.

Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence. In the beginning of the pandemic I wasn’t seeing patients who were very sick, mainly due to screening processes. And guess what, none of them were hospitalized after I diagnosed them with Covid-19. That doesn’t mean I did anything that kept them from getting sick.

I could have prescribed ivermectin, azithromycin, plaquenil, or whatever and then claimed that is what kept them from being hospitalized. The reality is that they just were not that sick, mostly due to selection bias.

[Indian Chief]

Completely anecdotal, but the sister-in-law had a kidney transplant a little over a year ago. She already had a 3rd vaccine dose, probably 2 or 3 weeks ago. She has to this point zero measurable antibody response. If you look at the numbers for solid organ transplant recipients, it's worrisome and why they are pushing for a 3rd shot. Still, was shocked when she told me her results.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Indian Chief

Completely anecdotal, but the sister-in-law had a kidney transplant a little over a year ago. She already had a 3rd vaccine dose, probably 2 or 3 weeks ago. She has to this point zero measurable antibody response. If you look at the numbers for solid organ transplant recipients, it's worrisome and why they are pushing for a 3rd shot. Still, was shocked when she told me her results.

I assume that's because of the treatments? My brother-in-law is dealing with a form of bone cancer, and they've told him he needs to get re-vaccinated after he wraps up his chemo and transplant because it will basically wipe out his immune system.

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by Indian Chief

Completely anecdotal, but the sister-in-law had a kidney transplant a little over a year ago. She already had a 3rd vaccine dose, probably 2 or 3 weeks ago. She has to this point zero measurable antibody response. If you look at the numbers for solid organ transplant recipients, it's worrisome and why they are pushing for a 3rd shot. Still, was shocked when she told me her results.

This is one of the reasons why vaccination is so important, for at risk people who the vaccine doesn’t create antibodies.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

There's a site that compiles all the global HCQ Covid studies. Granted, those that include zinc is a very small %.

I wasn't just referring to studies, although there have been some really promising ones. I was referring to anecdotal evidence too. Of which there was an abundance. Of course, any mention of such things is erased from social media.

The question is....why are you convinced that zinc + hcq is not effective?

Again, why are you all in on hcq but not on the vaccine?

[chiefzilla1501]

Originally Posted by SupDock

Because in science, we don’t start with the assumption that something works. In fact, we try not to have an assumption either way. There hasn’t been any clinical data to show it works, so why would I use it?

I’m not a clinical researcher, so I generally don’t use unproven therapies.

Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence. In the beginning of the pandemic I wasn’t seeing patients who were very sick, mainly due to screening processes. And guess what, none of them were hospitalized after I diagnosed them with Covid-19. That doesn’t mean I did anything that kept them from getting sick.

I could have prescribed ivermectin, azithromycin, plaquenil, or whatever and then claimed that is what kept them from being hospitalized. The reality is that they just were not that sick, mostly due to selection bias.

That sounds suspect, as I don't believe you've ever practiced medicine on Twitter.

[Bearcat]

Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501

That sounds suspect, as I don't believe you've ever practiced medicine on Twitter.

He only has like 12 followers!

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Again, why are you all in on hcq but not on the vaccine?

All I've said is that it's been irrationally suppressed and demonized, and for all the wrong reasons.

[sedated]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

She was really sick but was on a video conference call?

"Pretty sick", as in noticeable. Not asymptomatic.

I don't doubt she will be fine, but that's the first vaxxed person I've known that's gotten infected plus actually gotten sick.

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by RaidersOftheCellar

All I've said is that it's been irrationally suppressed and demonized, and for all the wrong reasons.

Shouldn't you be similarly supporting the vaccines, which have been irrationally demonized?

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by SupDock

Because in science, we don’t start with the assumption that something works. In fact, we try not to have an assumption either way. There hasn’t been any clinical data to show it works, so why would I use it?

I’m not a clinical researcher, so I generally don’t use unproven therapies.

Anecdotal evidence is the worst kind of evidence. In the beginning of the pandemic I wasn’t seeing patients who were very sick, mainly due to screening processes. And guess what, none of them were hospitalized after I diagnosed them with Covid-19. That doesn’t mean I did anything that kept them from getting sick.

I could have prescribed ivermectin, azithromycin, plaquenil, or whatever and then claimed that is what kept them from being hospitalized. The reality is that they just were not that sick, mostly due to selection bias.

Are you not a believer in the power of zinc?

There's plenty of evidence that zinc inhibits viral replication, including in Covid patients. HCQ is only useful to channel the zinc into cells. It makes little sense that nearly all the studies involve HCQ by itself.

There are also studies that have shown zinc deficiency in a significant number of Covid patients, along with more complications and higher mortality.

[DaFace]

I saw that, Fish.

If only others would learn as well...

[RaidersOftheCellar]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

Shouldn't you be similarly supporting the vaccines, which have been irrationally demonized?

You really think that's a good comparison?