***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.”

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

No, I think what you said makes sense, specifically:

experience doing market research for hospitals tells me that they're very business-driven. They're not going to cut capacity if there's pent-up demand in an area.

So ultimately, they already knew what they could handle based on Covid wave 1 and actually knew what they needed for season 2. Hospitals operate for profit so they don't want all this excess unused capacity.

Or logically, it seems like they didn't know if they could. Otherwise, they wouldn't have expanded capacity.

I haven't paid close attention to all of the stats, but I feel like maybe that's logical if they've figured out how better to treat it, or if the second round was bigger but more mild (i.e., fewer hospital days per case).

I'm not sure what we're proving or disproving, but it's interesting to think about.

[Rain Man]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

Waiting to see if the courts block the mandate.

I think there's a strong legal history of allowing such things, so I'd be surprised if any challenges would be successful. Assuming that it happens, what's your next step?

[Hawker007]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think there's a strong legal history of allowing such things, so I'd be surprised if any challenges would be successful. Assuming that it happens, what's your next step?

I don't know about that...the main cases are from 1905 and 1922. There's plenty of angles left to challenge it, particularly if you are in a state that has passed a law against mandating vaccines, or for religious purposes.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Hawker007

I don't know about that...the main cases are from 1905 and 1922. There's plenty of angles left to challenge it, particularly if you are in a state that has passed a lot against mandating vaccines, or for religious purposes.

Those are also cases where the state mandated it. Not a federal mandate.

[dirk digler]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think there's a strong legal history of allowing such things, so I'd be surprised if any challenges would be successful. Assuming that it happens, what's your next step?

Yep, Multiple Federal courts have already ruled on this in the last couple of months in favor of the employers

If you are in a state that has at-will employment you are SOL

[Monticore]

Restaurants, movie theatres , my kids hockey games without any mouth breathers around , I haven't been this excited since they banned smoking indoors.

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by DaFace

I'll never understand why 99% survival rate is an argument for anything. If 1% of the country died, that would be around 3.5 million people. Or to frame it a little differently, if 1% of people in Arrowhead stadium died, that would be around 760 people. One percent is NOT A SMALL NUMBER.



I just don't understand how anyone can look at the ~700k deaths from this thing and think, "This is fine. Let's keep this up."

My friend keeps pushing that and natural immunity. He got covid a few months ago and was as sick as he's been and avoided the hospital. He missed 2 weeks work and same with his wife. Now he's like well I got natural immunity so I don't even need the vaccine. It's frustrating showing him everything but he isn't budging.

[Sure-Oz]

Originally Posted by Katipan

They do not care.



Frame it in prose all you want, but they do not care.

If it doesn't touch them, it's someone else's problem.



It's some of the most vile thought patterns ever used here and we used to call each other sacks of santorum.

Basically that's how I feel. My friend is like well I'm glad you got the vaccine but I'm good. He's still worried about long term effects but not worried what covid may have done to him and possibly his wife long-term. He is fine wearing a mask when it's required. I'm honestly surprised he's taken this stance when his parents and brother have been vaxxed and they are all smokers.

[Chief Pagan]

Originally Posted by MahomesMagic

At the end of the day, whatever the collective reasons for reducing capacity the media has never mentioned these reductions and instead screamed about how we were close to the edge here and there over and over.

Seems like if hospital capacity was a national issue blinking red it was something the Federal government and states could have fixed by now if they wanted to.

The biggest bottle neck is staff. You can throw money at the problem and physically create another ICU bed, but you can't just create trained staff out of thin air by offering money.

Nine women can't have a baby in a month.

A lot of the high tech staff that runs the ICU beds is burned out from longer hours than normal. They have also had to deal with more patients at once than they did pre-pandemic. So maybe they might be monitoring four patients at once instead of two.

So just retaining/replacing staff has sometimes been an issue let alone increasing staff.

And for ICU staff, this crisis hasn't just been a few weeks or months. It's more than a year and counting. And now they have the additional frustration of taking care of patients that they wouldn't have had to if those patients had only gotten vaccinated.

[Nirvana58]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

I think there's a strong legal history of allowing such things, so I'd be surprised if any challenges would be successful. Assuming that it happens, what's your next step?

I haven't made any decisions. I know a few coworkers that will for sure quit. I hope it doesn't come to that.

I am someone that isn't against the vaccine. I just have already had covid and not in a high risk group. Since I seem to be better protected from Delta than the vaccinated there is no reason for me to get the vaccine at this point.

I also believe that people should be able to have the choice. They should not have to choose between their job and getting a brand new vaccine with no long term data. One that is also shielded from any liability from people that have adverse reactions.

[MahomesMagic]

Originally Posted by Chief Pagan

The biggest bottle neck is staff. You can throw money at the problem and physically create another ICU bed, but you can't just create trained staff out of thin air by offering money.

Nine women can't have a baby in a month.

A lot of the high tech staff that runs the ICU beds is burned out from longer hours than normal. They have also had to deal with more patients at once than they did pre-pandemic. So maybe they might be monitoring four patients at once instead of two.

So just retaining/replacing staff has sometimes been an issue let alone increasing staff.

And for ICU staff, this crisis hasn't just been a few weeks or months. It's more than a year and counting. And now they have the additional frustration of taking care of patients that they wouldn't have had to if those patients had only gotten vaccinated.

Sure, staffing is an issue. I also would imagine it will be even more of an issue if they lose more staff due to vaccine mandates.

[lawrenceRaider]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

I haven't made any decisions. I know a few coworkers that will for sure quit. I hope it doesn't come to that.

I am someone that isn't against the vaccine. I just have already had covid and not in a high risk group. Since I seem to be better protected from Delta than the vaccinated there is no reason for me to get the vaccine at this point.

I also believe that people should be able to have the choice. They should not have to choose between their job and getting a brand new vaccine with no long term data. One that is also shielded from any liability from people that have adverse reactions.

Over 2.5 billion people globally have had 2 shots. Don't you serious adverse reactions would be known by now?

[Fish]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

I haven't made any decisions. I know a few coworkers that will for sure quit. I hope it doesn't come to that.

I am someone that isn't against the vaccine. I just have already had covid and not in a high risk group. Since I seem to be better protected from Delta than the vaccinated there is no reason for me to get the vaccine at this point.

I also believe that people should be able to have the choice. They should not have to choose between their job and getting a brand new vaccine with no long term data. One that is also shielded from any liability from people that have adverse reactions.

Over half the US population has be vaccinated, and it started ~18 months ago. Vaccines have been a huge success and there's plentiful available data to back that up. Not much excuse at this point. It's not a brand new vaccine. You don't always have the choice in what your employer requires...

[Pitt Gorilla]

Originally Posted by Nirvana58

If you have to ask this after a year of lock downs and now moving forward with vaccine mandates. I don't know what to tell you.

And yet, I still haven't lost any freedoms.

[jdubya]

Anecdotal but here in NorCal we need to show proof of vax blah blah blah.

I was first to show up at a restaurant and they asked for proof of vax. I showed a picture of my vax card to them and they waved me inside. Whats funny is they didn't "look" at my photo nor ask me for ID. They simply waved me in when I showed them a picture lol. A few minutes later my buddy arrived and I saw him outside of the restaurant. He texted me that he didn't have his vax card and could not come inside. I quickly sent him a picture of my vax card and he walked right in lol. This is all bullshit folks.....get a grip