***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]

Originally Posted by O.city

Another thing was that they could have gotten good masks (n95 or equivalent) out to the public ASAP.

In the end, it's a highly contagious respiratory virus. Locking down will shut it down, but locking down isn't long term. And while getting it low and testing and tracing works well in theory, in real life, we see isn't theory.

Might be with the n95s but generally speaking I think we oversimplified the message of masks. Contrary to what some want to assert, more people are wearing a mask globally than ever and it isn't preventing cases from shooting up.

Not only are masks just a piece of what needs to be done, bad mask etiquette and such all but negate the mask. And then as I said, I think masks just aren't as good as we hoped in general. The anecdotal evidence says more people are wearing masks and yet more people are getting Covid. And when cases do rise many seem quick to say "well they aren't wearing a mask" when that is most likely not the case.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Might be with the n95s but generally speaking I think we oversimplified the message of masks. Contrary to what some want to assert, more people are wearing a mask globally than ever and it isn't preventing cases from shooting up.

Not only are masks just a piece of what needs to be done, bad mask etiquette and such all but negate the mask. And then as I said, I think masks just aren't as good as we hoped in general. The anecdotal evidence says more people are wearing masks and yet more people are getting Covid. And when cases do rise many seem quick to say "well they aren't wearing a mask" when that is most likely not the case.

There were no randomized control trials supporting them. It was just something cheap that politicians could do to make it look like they were doing something.

Recall 9/11 and the security theater around taking off your shoes and having small bottles of shampoo.

[BWillie]

Originally Posted by Donger

For those who want to review the science:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019...sars-cov2.html

Scientific Brief: Community Use of Cloth Masks to Control the Spread of SARS-CoV-2

Background

SARS-CoV-2 infection is transmitted predominately by respiratory droplets generated when people cough, sneeze, sing, talk, or breathe. CDC recommends community use of masks, specifically non-valved multi-layer cloth masks, to prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2. Masks are primarily intended to reduce the emission of virus-laden droplets (“source control”), which is especially relevant for asymptomatic or presymptomatic infected wearers who feel well and may be unaware of their infectiousness to others, and who are estimated to account for more than 50% of transmissions.1,2 Masks also help reduce inhalation of these droplets by the wearer (“filtration for personal protection”). The community benefit of masking for SARS-CoV-2 control is due to the combination of these effects; individual prevention benefit increases with increasing numbers of people using masks consistently and correctly.

Source Control to Block Exhaled Virus

Multi-layer cloth masks block release of exhaled respiratory particles into the environment,3-6 along with the microorganisms these particles carry.7,8 Cloth masks not only effectively block most large droplets (i.e., 20-30 microns and larger)9 but they can also block the exhalation of fine droplets and particles (also often referred to as aerosols) smaller than 10 microns ;3,5 which increase in number with the volume of speech10-12 and specific types of phonation.13 Multi-layer cloth masks can both block up to 50-70% of these fine droplets and particles3,14 and limit the forward spread of those that are not captured.5,6,15,16 Upwards of 80% blockage has been achieved in human experiments that have measured blocking of all respiratory droplets,4 with cloth masks in some studies performing on par with surgical masks as barriers for source control.3,9,14

Filtration for Personal Protection

Studies demonstrate that cloth mask materials can also reduce wearers’ exposure to infectious droplets through filtration, including filtration of fine droplets and particles less than 10 microns. The relative filtration effectiveness of various masks has varied widely across studies, in large part due to variation in experimental design and particle sizes analyzed. Multiple layers of cloth with higher thread counts have demonstrated superior performance compared to single layers of cloth with lower thread counts, in some cases filtering nearly 50% of fine particles less than 1 micron .14,17-29 Some materials (e.g., polypropylene) may enhance filtering effectiveness by generating triboelectric charge (a form of static electricity) that enhances capture of charged particles18,30 while others (e.g., silk) may help repel moist droplets31 and reduce fabric wetting and thus maintain breathability and comfort.

Human Studies of Masking and SARS-CoV-2 Transmission

Data regarding the “real-world” effectiveness of community masking are limited to observational and epidemiological studies.

• An investigation of a high-exposure event, in which 2 symptomatically ill hair stylists interacted for an average of 15 minutes with each of 139 clients during an 8-day period, found that none of the 67 clients who subsequently consented to an interview and testing developed infection. The stylists and all clients universally wore masks in the salon as required by local ordinance and company policy at the time.32
• In a study of 124 Beijing households with > 1 laboratory-confirmed case of SARS-CoV-2 infection, mask use by the index patient and family contacts before the index patient developed symptoms reduced secondary transmission within the households by 79%.33
• A retrospective case-control study from Thailand documented that, among more than 1,000 persons interviewed as part of contact tracing investigations, those who reported having always worn a mask during high-risk exposures experienced a greater than 70% reduced risk of acquiring infection compared with persons who did not wear masks under these circumstances.34
• A study of an outbreak aboard the USS Theodore Roosevelt, an environment notable for congregate living quarters and close working environments, found that use of face coverings on-board was associated with a 70% reduced risk.35
• Investigations involving infected passengers aboard flights longer than 10 hours strongly suggest that masking prevented in-flight transmissions, as demonstrated by the absence of infection developing in other passengers and crew in the 14 days following exposure.36,37

Seven studies have confirmed the benefit of universal masking in community level analyses: in a unified hospital system,38 a German city,39 a U.S. state,40 a panel of 15 U.S. states and Washington, D.C.,41,42 as well as both Canada43 and the U.S.44 nationally. Each analysis demonstrated that, following directives from organizational and political leadership for universal masking, new infections fell significantly. Two of these studies42,44 and an additional analysis of data from 200 countries that included the U.S.45 also demonstrated reductions in mortality. An economic analysis using U.S. data found that, given these effects, increasing universal masking by 15% could prevent the need for lockdowns and reduce associated losses of up to $1 trillion or about 5% of gross domestic product.42

Conclusions

Experimental and epidemiological data support community masking to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2. The prevention benefit of masking is derived from the combination of source control and personal protection for the mask wearer. The relationship between source control and personal protection is likely complementary and possibly synergistic14, so that individual benefit increases with increasing community mask use. Further research is needed to expand the evidence base for the protective effect of cloth masks and in particular to identify the combinations of materials that maximize both their blocking and filtering effectiveness, as well as fit, comfort, durability, and consumer appeal. Adopting universal masking policies can help avert future lockdowns, especially if combined with other non-pharmaceutical interventions such as social distancing, hand hygiene, and adequate ventilation.

And that is shitty cloth masks. N95's offer even way more protection. Nothing is failproof but the goal is to lower the risk.

[BigRedChief]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Biden Covid Advisor is suggesting a 4-6 week lockdown nationwide. Don't think that carries much weight at the moment but something to be aware of.

We are not locking down again. The people wont tolerate another lock down. You cant enforce it. No one in charge or will be in charge is saying lock down. We are pass that as a viable option.

[Donger]

Originally Posted by BWillie

And that is shitty cloth masks. N95's offer even way more protection. Nothing is failproof but the goal is to lower the risk.

I know. I posted that to show why the CDC has updated the guidance based upon new data and science.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Ethics and business rarely go hand-hand.....

That was exactly my point. Sucks that we are all powerless victims to unethical health insurance monoliths reaping astronomical profits while the coverage gets shittier and the premiums go up for us.

[loochy]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Detroit schools going full remote.....

oh silly pete, nobody goes to school in Detroit

[Pants]

Originally Posted by petegz28

According to the Kansas Cluster Survey that's not entirely accurate. At least for around here.....

Ahead of bars and restaurants are:

Long Term Care Facilities
Corrections
Meat Packing
Private Businesses
Colleges
School
Private Events
Religious Gatherings
Sports
Healthcare


Then

Bar or Restaurant

Just sayin....

My point was that places where people tend to not wear masks are responsible for the most spread.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Pants

My point was that places where people tend to not wear masks are responsible for the most spread.

Do you think people aren't wearing masks in meat packing plants and care facilities? Those are the #1 and #2 cluster areas.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Do you think people aren't wearing masks in meat packing plants and care facilities? Those are the #1 and #2 cluster areas.

My impression is that when the mass infections were occurring in those places, mask wearing was not yet the norm.

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Pants

That was exactly my point. Sucks that we are all powerless victims to unethical health insurance monoliths reaping astronomical profits while the coverage gets shittier and the premiums go up for us.

Well I've long been for making insurance companies non-profit. Not a total fix but a step in the right direction. I think there were a lot of dumb things done with the ACA along with a lot of smart things.

Pre-existing coverage = good
Not capping benefits = good
Limiting out of pocket = maybe not so good
Forcing coverage for things you don't want or need = bad
Not allowing competition along state lines = bad
Keeping the employer in the mix = bad
Forcing insurance companies to spend 85% of revenue on care = bad

[petegz28]

Originally Posted by Pants

My impression is that when the mass infections were occurring in those places, mask wearing was not yet the norm.

Maybe it is but I would be shocked if people were not made to wear masks in meat packing plants with as many cases as we see out of them.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Well I've long been for making insurance companies non-profit. Not a total fix but a step in the right direction. I think there were a lot of dumb things done with the ACA along with a lot of smart things.

Pre-existing coverage = good
Not capping benefits = good
Limiting out of pocket = maybe not so good
Forcing coverage for things you don't want or need = bad
Not allowing competition along state lines = bad
Keeping the employer in the mix = bad
Forcing insurance companies to spend 85% of revenue on care = bad

My fault for making this political. I think you and I both agree that health insurance being a for profit industry in a marketplace where health care is simply not affordable by 99% of the population is problematic.

[Pants]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Maybe it is but I would be shocked if people were not made to wear masks in meat packing plants with as many cases as we see out of them.

I have not heard of any recent outbreaks in meat packing plants but I also admit I don't follow the news very closely at all.

I just assumed that outbreaks stopped occurring in those places in part because employees were made to wear masks.

[htismaqe]

Originally Posted by petegz28

Maybe it is but I would be shocked if people were not made to wear masks in meat packing plants with as many cases as we see out of them.

Granted, my visits have been brief but any time I've ever been to a packer, they're all wearing masks already. Has nothing to do with COVID.