***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 Donger

No. Someone in that home coming in contact with an infected human, getting infected and bringing it home.

Of course.

But unless we're prepared to shut down human contact, thats gonna happen

[Pants]

Originally Posted by O.city

I've got a little more left in me, so I'll take a swing.

This is true. We also know the majority of spread happens at home. I'm not sure how we suppress that.

This seems rather silly.

It makes sense to say statistically the majority of the spread happens at home because that's how infections work (hence, we have R0).

100 people getting infected with virus X in a public place and then taking it home and infecting 200 people as a result, for example, doesn't mean you have to mitigate the 200 infections at home. I think it's obvious to anyone you have to mitigate the original 100.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Donger

The task force guidelines for re-opening made sense. Re-opening while cases weren't declining wasn't logical.

All one has to do is look at New York. They did lock down and have had a phased re-opening with data-driven triggers. And it has worked.

They had massive protests and such as well. Didn't cause a spike. So we should be good to have fans in stands at football games if they wear masks, no?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by petegz28

What should have happened?
How long should it have been done?
What would be the end result?

Better compliance to recommendations of medical experts.
How long would depend on how well it worked.
Impossible to say, but better than what we've got now.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Pants

This seems rather silly.

It makes sense to say statistically the majority of the spread happens at home because that's how infections work (hence, we have R0).

100 people getting infected with virus X in a public place and then taking it home and infecting 200 people as a result, for example, doesn't mean you have to mitigate the 200 infections at home. I think it's obvious to anyone you have to mitigate the original 100.

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

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by petegz28

IIRC adults tend to spread to kids easier than kids spread to humans. And there was also a study out of Germany that suggested those who have consistent contact with children, specifically 10 and under, are in a much better position health-wise to combat Covid than people who never interact with children.

Under 10 that is probably correct but the SK study and others have found that kids over 10 or so transmit and receive just like adults. Which makes sense. I am not saying we are going to see mass deaths of kids but I am worried about those kids that are obese\have comorbidities, their parents and older care givers.

I am just frustrated because we are about to unleash millions of new targets for infections and when this happens we will never get this under control.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by O.city

Of course.

But unless we're prepared to shut down human contact, thats gonna happen

It's not binary.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Fish

Better compliance to recommendations of medical experts.
How long would depend on how well it worked.
Impossible to say, but better than what we've got now.

So if it doesn't work, just keep doing it for longer? That seems...off.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by O.city

They had massive protests and such as well. Didn't cause a spike. So we should be good to have fans in stands at football games if they wear masks, no?

Depends on whose agenda is being served.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by O.city

They had massive protests and such as well. Didn't cause a spike. So we should be good to have fans in stands at football games if they wear masks, no?

I don't know if they had massive protests. If they did, there's no denying that their efforts have been comparatively successful.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by O.city

So if it doesn't work, just keep doing it for longer? That seems...off.

The task force guidelines were specific. 10 to 14 days of new case growth decline.

Do/did you disagree with that trigger for the beginning of phased re-opening?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by O.city

So if it doesn't work, just keep doing it for longer? That seems...off.

If it doesn't work, you revise the approach until you find something that reduces the rate. Throwing your hands up and giving up shouldn't be option B.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Discuss Thrower

Depends on whose agenda is being served.

"Protests outside didn't cause spread because they wore masks and socially distanced"

"Ok, so as long as we're outside the spread is minimal, so lets get people outside as much as possible"

"No shut down everything and go into your homes".

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Fish

If it doesn't work, you revise the approach until you find something that reduces the rate. Throwing your hands up and giving up shouldn't be option B.

When you go to the most extreme thing first, you don't know what to revise to reduce the rate.

Hence where we are now.

Arizona is a prime example of it.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by O.city

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

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.