***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.”

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

I think that chart does a bad job of saying anything meaningful. It should be three lines for ILI specifically plotted against the suspected/confirmed C-19 cases.

Ili seems to be a good kind of “premeasuring” stick to look ahead

I’m not sure how much direct correlation there is with it though

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

I think that chart does a bad job of saying anything meaningful. It should be three lines for ILI specifically plotted against the suspected/confirmed C-19 cases.

I do tend to agree there. It would be nice to see how many people are going to the ER for CLI but end up with ILI?

Or I guess we just don't have the flu anymore and it's now all Covid?

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by O.city

Ili seems to be a good kind of “premeasuring” stick to look ahead

I’m not sure how much direct correlation there is with it though

what I take from it is that for 2 weeks during Covid you had 1% more ER visits than you did for the flu in 2018 at their respective peaks in the chart.

And with the exception of weeks 25-30 the CLI visits drastically resduced and came down to similar ILI numbers.

As we start moving into the weeks where ILI tends to rise it will be interesting to see what happens with CLI. And as DT was saying, it would be nice to see how many people are going to the ER with CLI but really it isn't.

In other words we need 2020 data for both ILI and CLI.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

Ili seems to be a good kind of “premeasuring” stick to look ahead

I’m not sure how much direct correlation there is with it though

I think the point is to suggest C-19 being present before spring 2020. Shitter water tests done in multiple areas across the globe means it is a possibility but of questionable probability.

[dlphg9]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Better?

I said beard. Not strands of hair congregating on my triple chin.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

I think the point is to suggest C-19 being present before spring 2020. Shitter water tests done in multiple areas across the globe means it is a possibility but of questionable probability.

Oh yeah, I didn't think of that. I don't really use it like that, but ILI is a good measure of what people are going to ER with as ILI is gonna basically be the same as CLI.

I have my opinion of when it "was" here but I don't know that it's necessarily substantiated so who the hell knows. I'll stick with the "january ish" timeline.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

Oh yeah, I didn't think of that. I don't really use it like that, but ILI is a good measure of what people are going to ER with as ILI is gonna basically be the same as CLI.

I have my opinion of when it "was" here but I don't know that it's necessarily substantiated so who the hell knows. I'll stick with the "january ish" timeline.

Were accurate counts of non-C19 illnesses even kept this year?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Were accurate counts of non-C19 illnesses even kept this year?

Who knows. I’d like to think so but it seems like everything else is back burner at this point

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

Who knows. I’d like to think so but it seems like everything else is back burner at this point

How many pure ILI cases were rolled into presumed C-19 cases? Makes sense to treat anyone with ILI symptoms as C-19 if tests for the latter aren't available or individual results are inconclusive when it comes to treatment. But that doesn't seem.. helpful when it comes to tracking the overall prevalence of C-19.

[kgrund]

Originally Posted by O.city

Ili seems to be a good kind of “premeasuring” stick to look ahead

I’m not sure how much direct correlation there is with it though

Early on when people were complaining about testing, Dr. Birx noted that they had enough data to reasonably track outbreaks. She specifically cited the ILI as being a good lead indicator of a potential problem in an area.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

How many pure ILI cases were rolled into presumed C-19 cases? Makes sense to treat anyone with ILI symptoms as C-19 if tests for the latter aren't available or individual results are inconclusive when it comes to treatment. But that doesn't seem.. helpful when it comes to tracking the overall prevalence of C-19.

It’s a good surveillance type of way to look I guess.

My problem with treating it all as Covid is that it really shouldn’t change protocol. You should theoretically be using universal protocols for anyone woth a potential infectious disease.

We were taught to essentially view every patient as having HIV or hep b just to get that thought process going

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

It’s a good surveillance type of way to look I guess.

My problem with treating it all as Covid is that it really shouldn’t change protocol. You should theoretically be using universal protocols for anyone woth a potential infectious disease.

We were taught to essentially view every patient as having HIV or hep b just to get that thought process going

And the CDC only has ILI data on people who seek treatment, right?

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

And the CDC only has ILI data on people who seek treatment, right?

I have no idea

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by O.city

I guess it's elsewhere that's taking that long, here in our area, it's 36 hours or less.

That story is just exaggerated BS to make it sound more dramatic. Wait time is not 7-14 days on average that's a complete outlier.

Kansas is slow as hell because as I have been told, they have a single lab in Wichita doing all the state testing rather than farming it out to private companies.

Missouri is extremely quick on the other hand.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

That story is just exaggerated BS to make it sound more dramatic. Wait time is not 7-14 days on average that's a complete outlier.

Kansas is slow as hell because as I have been told, they have a single lab in Wichita doing all the state testing rather than farming it out to private companies.

Missouri is extremely quick on the other hand.

Our health system tries to do as many labs in-house as we possibly can which typically has a 24-48 hr turnaround.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk