***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.”

[PHOG]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

That shit is going to be stupid with no fans in the stadiums. To each their own but I wouldn't watch it.

Sports networks would be all over it. Not to mention the regular networks.

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

Sports without fans will suck absolute monkey nuts...especially baseball all played in Arizona. Not buying the "better than nothing!" The crowds are the difference makers to me.

Maybe in thr NFL and NBA, but MLB regular season baseball? Really?

Pump in some crowd noise. You will be fine.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Monticore

What about false negatives .

Depends on the reason for the negatives and the rates. If it's because of how they're administered (which is my guess), then you just make sure the people conducting the tests know exactly how to do so. Or if one 'style' of test is giving more false negatives, don't use it.

But it still seems unlikely that you'll have some massive outbreak that fells an entire team (or even more than 3-5 players on it) because of a false negative. Especially not if players continue to enforce hygiene and basic distancing, which is possible in baseball. Even if someone sneaks through the net, they are still not likely to mass infect their teammates before showing symptoms (or having a single teammate show symptoms).

These worst case scenario freakouts continue to be built on an exponential growth presumption that simply isn't coming to fruition.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by Marcellus

I think they are the same people who work in the service department scheduling for satellite and cable companies.

"Your appointment is confirmed and your technician will arrive sometime between 8:00am and 5:00pm."

Any model is only as good as the assumptions put into it. As we’ve seen they didn’t have anywhere near the right ones be it due to lack of testing or just lack of info I don’t know.

Something is way off for sure

[BigCatDaddy]

Originally Posted by PHOG

Sports networks would be all over it. Not to mention the regular networks.

Absolutely. WTF else are you going to do? Ratings at all time highs.

[O.city]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

Their data is based upon information from a Lancet study published last week that was largely dependent upon early reports of caseload from Wuhan. Therefore, if one is skeptical of the information from Wuhan, then this information is also lacking.

It also makes a number of assumptions: that people are tested four days after the initiation of symptoms, and that detection rates are constant over time.

Their takeaway is also that we must substantially improve detection before easing restrictions, lest a new outbreak occur.

I don’t trust China for sure. But we have the diamond princess that would line up somewhat with these numbers as well

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Pasta Giant Meatball

Sports without fans will suck absolute monkey nuts...especially baseball all played in Arizona. Not buying the "better than nothing!" The crowds are the difference makers to me.

They did the no fans game in Baltimore a couple years ago because of riots or something and I actually thought it was great.

Football would be a different animal. Baseball, especially regular season baseball, just isn't heavily influenced by the crowd. It's an individual sport played as a team more than it is a team sport. I just don't think you lose much there.

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

Maybe in thr NFL and NBA, but MLB regular season baseball? Really?

Pump in some crowd noise. You will be fine.

Yuck. I get it though. Personally, I'm the one with the sound up to infinity to hear the crowd reaction to things. Would be so empty.

['Hamas' Jenkins]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But what parts of it?

Because there's not a short term answer here. This is going to be something we need to slowly open the taps back up on and be able to adjust back to keep things contained here and there.

And because we just locked everything down, we have no idea if the 'simple' social distancing gave us 80% of the gains we made or not. If so, that's the obvious way to proceed. We don't know if we can open schools back up or restaurants. We don't know if bars w/ 50 people maximums would help enough to keep the curve reduced to manageable levels.

And why? Because everyone made louder and more extreme predictions over and over again. So we never got a halfway decent control.

We have no idea what is necessary or overkill because we never bothered to tailor an approach due to to hysterical models.

It was terrible science and terrible policy. We learned nothing towards putting together a long-term plan. "Oh well, anything to make an omelet" is not an acceptable approach to this thing.

What were they supposed to do with the information presented to them? China locked down an entire province. SK implemented extreme measures to isolate and trace contacts. Other EU countries went into lockdown before the US.

If you're a public health official presented with with that information, knowing that you have a respiratory virus that is both highly contagious and virulent, installing half measures opens you up to the worst of both outcomes--massive death and economic calamity.

This was always going to end up getting Monday Morning QB'd. If the death toll ended up being lower than anticipated, people would complain that too much damage was done to the economy. If the death toll ended up higher, people would complain that not enough was done.

Rather than complaining, perhaps we should be happy if the death toll is lower because it means that the solution to the problem resulted in far less death and stress to the health care system than we could have anticipated. It isn't common, but sometimes therapies are *more* effective than you would have estimated.

And if that is the case, it allows you to implement an easing of restrictions at a greater rate, which I think we all believe would be a good thing.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by BigCatDaddy

You wouldn't watch baseball because there arent amy fans?

Well I don't watch baseball at all so it really wouldn't matter whether there were fans or not. But now that I think about it, it might work for baseball idk I'm not familiar enough w the sport to comment but as far as NFL/NBA no I wouldn't watch it if there were no fans.

They make a huge difference in those sports and make the game more exciting. It wouldn't be the same, it'd be weird. I'd rather watch a movie or play COD and then just check after the game who won.

[Bugeater]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

But what parts of it?

Because there's not a short term answer here. This is going to be something we need to slowly open the taps back up on and be able to adjust back to keep things contained here and there.

And because we just locked everything down, we have no idea if the 'simple' social distancing gave us 80% of the gains we made or not. If so, that's the obvious way to proceed. We don't know if we can open schools back up or restaurants. We don't know if bars w/ 50 people maximums would help enough to keep the curve reduced to manageable levels.

And why? Because everyone made louder and more extreme predictions over and over again. So we never got a halfway decent control.

We have no idea what is necessary or overkill because we never bothered to tailor an approach due to to hysterical models.

It was terrible science and terrible policy. We learned nothing towards putting together a long-term plan. "Oh well, anything to make an omelet" is not an acceptable approach to this thing.

And there are STILL people screaming that we need to do more....

[Pasta Little Brioni]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

They did the no fans game in Baltimore a couple years ago because of riots or something and I actually thought it was great.

Football would be a different animal. Baseball, especially regular season baseball, just isn't heavily influenced by the crowd. It's an individual sport played as a team more than it is a team sport. I just don't think you lose much there.

Oh, I get it. Not the way I'm wired though. Maybe spoiled too by the great fan support of the teams I've followed, too used to going to games to get a fix, and the game day atmospheres.

[wazu]

Originally Posted by PAChiefsGuy

Well I don't watch baseball at all so it really wouldn't matter whether there were fans or not. But now that I think about it, it might work for baseball idk I'm not familiar enough w the sport to comment but as far as NFL/NBA no I wouldn't watch it if there were no fans.

They make a huge difference in those sports and make the game more exciting. It wouldn't be the same it'd be weird. I'd rather watch a movie and then just check after the game who won.

If Chiefs are playing, I'm watching. Don't care if it's pre-season. No fans wouldn't be that much different than an away game at Chargers.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins

What were they supposed to do with the information presented to them? China locked down an entire province. SK implemented extreme measures to isolate and trace contacts. Other EU countries went into lockdown before the US.

If you're a public health official presented with with that information, knowing that you have a respiratory virus that is both highly contagious and virulent, installing half measures opens you up to the worst of both outcomes--massive death and economic calamity.

This was always going to end up getting Monday Morning QB'd. If the death toll ended up being lower than anticipated, people would complain that too much damage was done to the economy. If the death toll ended up higher, people would complain that not enough was done.

Rather than complaining, perhaps we should be happy if the death toll is lower because it means that the solution to the problem resulted in far less death and stress to the health care system than we could have anticipated. It isn't common, but sometimes therapies are *more* effective than you would have estimated.

And if that is the case, it allows you to implement an easing of restrictions at a greater rate, which I think we all believe would be a good thing.

I agree.

Fauci himself said he would rather overreact than underreact, all the nonscience people will always criticize no matter what but part of the reason it might not get as bad as predicted is because of the measures we've taken.

[PAChiefsGuy]

Originally Posted by wazu

If Chiefs are playing, I'm watching. Don't care if it's pre-season. No fans wouldn't be that much different than an away game at Chargers.

No doubt. I'm sure a lot of fans would but I wouldn't. Just wouldn't be the same. I'd check the highlights out though for sure.