***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.”

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by Otter

No, I'm not doing your Google for you. Copy / paste then click the search button.

It's relevance has to do with why people are hesitant to get the vaccine. Would you bind yourself to a legal agreement under those terms?

And people shoving their morals down others throats are not quiet as responsible but it's close.

This translates to being clueless and just repeating what was read in a meme on facebook or twitter.

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I'm wondering if we'll get to the point where unvaccinated covid patients will move down the waiting list. I realize that the health system has an ethical obligation to treat the sickest patients first, but when you have a huge group of people who are sick by choice, I would argue that the ethical thing is to let them wait for the people who didn't choose to get sick.

They don’t necessarily treat the sickest patients first. In times of limited resources the sickest patients may receive no treatment if it is too dire. The sickest patients who are most likely to get better with treatment go to the front of the line. I know that’s not exactly what you are talking about though.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I can't imagine they're willing to pay now.

Up until very recently, most insurance companies were providing covid testing and treatment and waiving payment or capping payment. Pretty much all of them have now ended that. Covid vaccine will likely soon invoke an insurance penalty like smoking does since it's not seen as preventable.

Don’t Want a Vaccine? Be Prepared to Pay More for Insurance.

[...]

Getting hospitalized with Covid-19 in the United States typically generates huge bills. Those submitted by Covid patients to the NPR-Kaiser Health News Bill of the Month project include a $17,000 bill for a brief hospital stay in Marietta, Ga. (reduced to about $4,000 for an uninsured patient under a charity-care policy); a $104,000 bill for a 14-day hospitalization in Miami for an uninsured person; possibly hundreds of thousands for a two-week hospital stay — some of it on a ventilator — for a foreign tourist in Hawaii whose travel health insurance contained a pandemic exclusion.

Even though insurance companies negotiate lower prices and cover much of the cost of care, a more than $1,000 out-of-pocket bill for a deductible — plus more for copays and possibly some out-of-network care — should be a pretty scary incentive.

In 2020, before there were Covid-19 vaccines, most major private insurers waived patient payments — from coinsurance to deductibles — for Covid treatment. But many, if not most, have allowed that policy to lapse. Aetna, for example, ended that policy on Feb. 28; UnitedHealthcare began rolling back its waivers late last year and discontinued them by the end of March.

[suzzer99]

The protest actually wasn't a walkout, they were off the clock, so this is pretty funny coming from the "no lie" news source with "no disinformation" https://t.co/gu5IBO4a6H

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) August 23, 2021

We did not walk out. We came together before dawn to share a common message that masks and vaccinations are important. Then we all went to work. @MSNBC this is a falsehood

— Dr. Sara Connolly (@DrSaraVoteKids) August 23, 2021

The media blows.

[Mr. Plow]

I preface this question with the info that I'm not antivax & I'm not specifically against the Covid vaccine although I have not had it yet. Initially I felt like I should wait because I am not considered high risk and I wanted to make sure people like my dad, my sister & my son - people who really needed it - were able to get it. Then I got Covid & recovered - so I figured I had the antibodies so I didn't really need to get it.

But, I'm heading to get it this week and apparently I have a choice of which to get. I had intended to get the Moderna because that's what all of my family has had, but with the Pfizer getting FDA approval it got me wondering if there was really a benefit to one over the other. Just looking for some input if you feel one would be better to get over the other.

[SupDock]

Originally Posted by suzzer99

The protest actually wasn't a walkout, they were off the clock, so this is pretty funny coming from the "no lie" news source with "no disinformation" https://t.co/gu5IBO4a6H

— Josh Barro (@jbarro) August 23, 2021

We did not walk out. We came together before dawn to share a common message that masks and vaccinations are important. Then we all went to work. @MSNBC this is a falsehood

— Dr. Sara Connolly (@DrSaraVoteKids) August 23, 2021

The media blows.

For sure. I can’t imagine physicians being OK with the optic that they abandoned their patients. Not to mention ethically they could not do it.

[DaFace]

Originally Posted by Mr. Plow

I preface this question with the info that I'm not antivax & I'm not specifically against the Covid vaccine although I have not had it yet. Initially I felt like I should wait because I am not considered high risk and I wanted to make sure people like my dad, my sister & my son - people who really needed it - were able to get it. Then I got Covid & recovered - so I figured I had the antibodies so I didn't really need to get it.

But, I'm heading to get it this week and apparently I have a choice of which to get. I had intended to get the Moderna because that's what all of my family has had, but with the Pfizer getting FDA approval it got me wondering if there was really a benefit to one over the other. Just looking for some input if you feel one would be better to get over the other.

For most practical purposes, they're essentially the same. There has been SOME evidence that Moderna is a tiny bit more effective against Delta (on the scale of 90% vs. 95%), but Pfizer has been more fully vetted at this point (technically), so if you have any safety concerns, that's a nudge that direction.

But really, both of them are wildly effective and are both in widespread use with no major issues, so I'd personally go with whatever is most convenient. If the provider you want to go with offers both, I guess I'd go with Pfizer just because it's officially been put through the wringer at this point.

[Mr. Plow]

Originally Posted by DaFace

For most practical purposes, they're essentially the same. There has been SOME evidence that Moderna is a tiny bit more effective against Delta (on the scale of 90% vs. 95%), but Pfizer has been more fully vetted at this point (technically), so if you have any safety concerns, that's a nudge that direction.

But really, both of them are wildly effective and are both in widespread use with no major issues, so I'd personally go with whatever is most convenient. If the provider you want to go with offers both, I guess I'd go with Pfizer just because it's officially been put through the wringer at this point.

Thanks. I don't have any safety concerns with either, just wondered if there was a case to be made for one over the other.

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by DaFace

Well, I'll help I suppose. The article is from December 16, 2020. You're re-hashing arguments that are 9 months old. Ironically, the news today makes it more likely that there could be liability protections moving forward, which makes your posting it as if it's new news misleading and irrelevant.

I'm not sure how this being 9 months old makes it any less true or relevant today when someone points out why people are hesitant about the vaccines.

Thats some strange logic you are using.

[Otter]

Originally Posted by penguinz

This translates to being clueless and just repeating what was read in a meme on facebook or twitter.

I guess I assumed the CNBC reference in the quote was obvious.

My bad.

[sedated]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I'm wondering if we'll get to the point where unvaccinated covid patients will move down the waiting list. I realize that the health system has an ethical obligation to treat the sickest patients first, but when you have a huge group of people who are sick by choice, I would argue that the ethical thing is to let them wait for the people who didn't choose to get sick.

Originally Posted by Pitt Gorilla

I don't think many would have a problem with that. Those folks should own the risk.

I saw a conversation about this in DC (although I can't find it now) and obviously it did not go over well in that crowd. I think the argument was that why aren't we doing that for other groups like smokers and obese.

I believe the common term for this line of thinking is "slippery slope"

[jdubya]

Originally Posted by Fish

I care because my grandmother has been needing a hernia surgery for over year, and it keeps getting delayed longer and longer because the hospital doesn't have enough staff to do non-emergency elective surgeries. Because the hospital has been full of idiots who didn't think they needed a vaccine, but immediately rushed to the hospital once they caught covid. When their preventable ignorance starts effecting my family, yeah I give a shit...

Sounds like she has a horrible medical plan/group.. Maybe you should find her a better plan?

[jdubya]

Originally Posted by SupDock

They don’t necessarily treat the sickest patients first. In times of limited resources the sickest patients may receive no treatment if it is too dire. The sickest patients who are most likely to get better with treatment go to the front of the line. I know that’s not exactly what you are talking about though.

Yep, its called triage.....vax cards make no difference

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by jdubya

Sounds like she has a horrible medical plan/group.. Maybe you should find her a better plan?

So getting a better medical plan will all of a sudden free up rooms and staff in her local hospitals?

[penguinz]

Originally Posted by Otter

I guess I assumed the CNBC reference in the quote was obvious.

My bad.

Maybe you should just reference your quote next time. Stop being a lazy bitch.