***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.”

[petegz28]

So yesterday there was talk about the KC area getting slammed or something. Here are some stats..

KC Area:
5.2% of hospital beds are used for Covid
33.6% of hospital beds are available

8.7% of ICU beds are used for Covid
33.3% of ICU beds are available


JoCo:
5.4% of beds are used for Covid
41.8% of beds are available

8.8% of ICU beds are used for Covid
52.7% of ICU beds are available

Jackson County:
5.7% of beds used for Covid
29% of beds available

7.8% of ICU beds used for Covid
29.5% of ICU beds available



So whomever is saying KC is getting ran on or whatever I think needs to re-think their take.

In the entire KC area over 1/3 of the hospital beds are empty

In JoCo alone damn near half the beds are empty and over half of the ICU beds

[BWillie]

It will be interesting to see how the cold and flu season goes. It may just be that enough people have already got the virus and have some immunity that it limits the spread to some degree. I certainly expect an uptick of cases in a couple months though to levels we may have never seen before or at the top of levels we have seen.

I wonder what percentage of the population has some immunity? If there are some 6-7M reported cases, one would think there is at least triple that of ACTUAL cases that have ran it's course. Combine that with the people that already seem to not be susceptible to the virus that will hopefully help mitigate the spread even at peak cold and flue times.

[petegz28]

Some more fun stats:

Since July 19th 7-day average for testing in the KC area has dropped almost 50%

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by Pants

They probably shelved it due to the fact that both MERS and SARS were curbed before they could spread due to their relatively slow spread.

I've seen this point brought up in a lot of conspiracy corners of the internet. Basic rules of supply and demand answer this question.

[petegz28]

Interesting as well...

On 7-17 the 7 day average of tests was 4,041 tests a day in the KC area. As of yesterday it has dropped to 2,225.

Now for the fun...

On 7-17 the 7 day average of %positive was 11.2%. As of yesterday it is at 12.3%.

As I stated a few days ago though it as only Kansas I was referring too, testing has dropped significantly which is inflating the %positive rate. This is fairly logical as that is how math works when you test less people and the people you test have reason to suspect they have Covid.

In other words the %positivity rate is rather misleading.

[Frenchy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Interesting as well...

On 7-17 the 7 day average of tests was 4,041 tests a day in the KC area. As of yesterday it has dropped to 2,225.

Now for the fun...

On 7-17 the 7 day average of %positive was 11.2%. As of yesterday it is at 12.3%.

As I stated a few days ago though it as only Kansas I was referring too, testing has dropped significantly which is inflating the %positive rate. This is fairly logical as that is how math works when you test less people and the people you test have reason to suspect they have Covid.

In other words the %positivity rate is rather misleading.

What's the testing availability like in KC? In my city they've closed two of the test centers (one that got results back to you in 48 hours). Our current centers are all backlogged and notoriously inaccurate. Not saying that's what's happening in KC, but once that happened in my city I've pretty much disregarded the data they've reported since.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Frenchy

What's the testing availability like in KC? In my city they've closed two of the test centers (one that got results back to you in 48 hours). Our current centers are all backlogged and notoriously inaccurate. Not saying that's what's happening in KC, but once that happened in my city I've pretty much disregarded the data they've reported since.

That I could not say. The problem is we have the various counties and voards for both health and school using the %positive rate as the key metric to opening schools. I won't get into why I think they are latching onto that particular metric but there are reasons and it is a very easily manipulated stat.

The point being I don't think the %positive rate has increased but rather that the number of tests given has shrunk significantly thus keeping or inflating the %positive rate. Classic case of 1 out of 100 = 1% but 1 out of 50 = 2%.

[Hawker007]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Interesting as well...

On 7-17 the 7 day average of tests was 4,041 tests a day in the KC area. As of yesterday it has dropped to 2,225.

Now for the fun...

On 7-17 the 7 day average of %positive was 11.2%. As of yesterday it is at 12.3%.

As I stated a few days ago though it as only Kansas I was referring too, testing has dropped significantly which is inflating the %positive rate. This is fairly logical as that is how math works when you test less people and the people you test have reason to suspect they have Covid.

In other words the %positivity rate is rather misleading.

I've been saying this for weeks, that using this stat as a way to determine policy is ****ing absurd. The denominator is wayyyy too subjective.

[lewdog]

I agree.

Positivity rate means little if testing isn’t consistent.

[TLO]

Originally Posted by lewdog

I agree.

Positivity rate means little if testing isn’t consistent.

Possibly on this note - can anyone get past the paywall to this article?

https://www.wsj.com/articles/covid-1...es-11599211800

[MahomesMagic]

The Londoner: Let children be exposed to viruses, says Professor Gupta

Professor Sunetra Gupta, who has been a leading critic of the cost of lockdown, says she welcomes the return of schools as children “if anything... would benefit from being exposed to this and other seasonal coronaviruses”.

Gupta, who is a professor of theoretical epidemiology at Oxford, told The Londoner that alongside huge social and educational benefits, the “evidence is mounting that early exposure to these various coronaviruses is what enables people to survive them”.

Professor Gupta came to prominence earlier this year when she questioned the government’s reliance on the Imperial College London modelling of the coronavirus epidemic. Professor Gupta and her team produced modelling that posited a greater number of Britons could have immunity to the virus than thought. She has been a longstanding critic of the wider impacts of lockdown on the poorest in society and across the world.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...-a4538386.html

[jdubya]

Russian vaccine working?????? Maybe it is....

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-suggests.html

[eDave]

Sweden Now Has a Lower COVID-19 Death Rate Than the US.

The United States currently has 578 COVID-19 deaths per million compared to Sweden’s 577 per million, according to the global statistics web site Worldometers.

https://fee.org/articles/sweden-now-...hy-it-matters/

[Marcellus]

Originally Posted by eDave

Sweden Now Has a Lower COVID-19 Death Rate Than the US.

The United States currently has 578 COVID-19 deaths per million compared to Sweden’s 577 per million, according to the global statistics web site Worldometers.

https://fee.org/articles/sweden-now-...hy-it-matters/

The interesting thing about this is I doubt eDave understands the implication.

[Discuss Thrower]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

The interesting thing about this is I doubt eDave understands the implication.

Europe good. America bad.